ABSTRACT
The exact nature of a relationship between the psychology of an artist and the content and form of that individual's artistic creation will undoubtedly continue to elude scientific attempts at a precise definition and exhaustive description and explanation. After all, in order to fully comprehend the laws and mechanisms of the creative process, science would first have to demarcate the boundaries (if such definable boundaries actually exist) at which the “self ends and “the Other” begins, the “non-self that Iurko Hudz, one of the authors discussed later in this chapter, may have had in mind while choosing to name his novel Not-Us [Ne-My, 1998]. Science would also have to adequately grasp the essence of the process whereby the “self becomes conscious of itself and of “the Other,” thus, in effect, demanding that the object of its research, the human consciousness, act simultaneously as an independent and “objective” instrument for the study of its own nature and capabilities. And yet in spite of the clear impossibility of this task, the human mind will not be dissuaded from grappling with these questions, just as man will never suspend his seemingly futile search for a discernible meaning of his existence and activity.
