ObjectivesThe aim of this article is to explore the function of the unconscious trace in its articulations with desire and with the effects of creation. Starting from the psychoanalytic field, the article explores the areas of art history and aesthetics, since art and creation (literary or other) are the receptacles of the unthinkable. Returning to the idea that the artist is in advance of the psychoanalyst, this article proposes to distinguish the function of aesthetic emotion and creation in the way the real is processed, in particular the emergence of writing for two subjects, one the analysand and the other the writer. MethodThis article sets three elements in perspective: (a) questioning derived from the author's analytical practice, where aesthetic emotion in the processing of the real has proved crucial; (b) theoretical considerations on the notions of trace and detail set in the area of psychoanalysis, aesthetics and art history; (c) consideration of a fragment of analysis derived from the author's clinical practice, and of the works of a writer. This method is in tune with the tripartite nature of psychoanalysis itself – treatment, research, conceptualisation – and it opens up towards other domains liable to cast light on the issues of the unconscious: aesthetics, art history, literature. ResultsThis article shows the importance of the trace in the psychoanalytic process and the recognition of the unconscious. It evidences the conceptions of history and time that are specific to subjectivity, and restates that the psychoanalytic cure, far from seeking to fill the gaps in memory, focuses on a form of deconstruction aimed at the subject's fantasy. Following the path from remembrance to fantasy is not possible without working on the trace and the drive that it entails. The trace, like the symptom, calls up the real for the subject, and its interpretation relates to subjective truth. The analytic experience and the aesthetic experience are presented here for what they have in common–they find their orientation from the real. The exploration of the trace with the artist or the art historian shows the paradox of any processing of “a real”: sometimes approached as a sedimented narrative, sometimes as the blow of a truth, as a break. This shows that there is no possible processing of the real without accepting the unexpected and the unforeseen, and that in this journey aesthetic emotion can have a knotting function. DiscussionThis article proposes consideration of the trace underpinning the origins of psychoanalysis. The links between the trace, its registration, and subjective truth are examined. The function of fantasy in the reshaping of the trace and the real is also explored. The work by Carlo Ginzburg, Jacques Rancière and Daniel Arasse open up the exploration of the trace towards the domains of aesthetics and art history, and evidence the paradox that is specific to any processing of the real. The aesthetic dimension of the unconscious is broached and discussed on the basis of the trace and detail. The function of beauty in the relationship of the subject with the real and the emergence of creation is explored by way of the narrative of a subject and the work by Imre Kertesz. The article focuses on the idea that in the move from aesthetics to subjective truth there is an ethical challenge. ConclusionThe article sets out a general conclusion returning to a conception of history and time that is specific to subjectivity. In the issue of the trace, there is a major challenge for the recognition of unconscious desire and humanness itself: the function of the trace is linked to the question of causality, and subjective response in the encounter with the real. Aesthetics and art history open up these considerations towards other areas of efficacy of the unconscious, and the question of aesthetic emotion can be seen in its specific knot function.