Did he just repeat himself with Black Swan?

They were certainly intended as companion pieces; if I recall correctly, Aronofsky originally wanted to make one film about a romance between a wrestler and a ballerina, but at some point realized he had too much material and split the stories. But to suggest he simply made the same movie twice out of laziness is itself a lazily reductive analysis, or perhaps simply an attempt to court controversy for the sake of page views. Many of your points of comparison are either:
-inaccurately represented (The shooting styles of the films couldn't be much more different. The Wrestler adopts a naturalistic, documentary-style approach, whereas Black Swan is shot as a highly stylized horror movie.).
-so superficial as to be insignificant (A director's not allowed to make back-to-back character studies?).
-applicable to almost every movie (How many films don't feature difficult romantic relationships in some form?).
-or evidence of the very auteur theory you seek to refute (It's always been pretty clear that obsession/addiction is a favorite theme of his; if anything, The Wrestler features far less of it than anything else in his oeuvre.).

I don't seek to refute that Aronofsky is an auteur. I'm a big fan of his work, the article was merely written to present the similarities and initiate a discussion. I did not choose the title for the piece, that was an editorial decision above my head, so I can understand why it would seem I had an agenda.

Thanks for your feedback all the same.

Interesting article but I disagree. But, that may be because I've always understood that The Wrestler and Black Swan were originally intended to be the same film (like the previous poster mentioned). I could see how if you didn't know this, then the content may seem similar but to me these two are companion pieces. Kind of like Malick's The Tree of Life and To the Wonder or Also, again as the previous poster mentioned, stylistically these are polar opposites. In fact, The Wrestler is actually the black sheep in Aronofsky's filmography with its naturalistic approach.

I like the fact that they're linked and companion pieces, I think Aronofsky himself has said in the past, he'd like to imagine they would be played back-to-back in cinema's some day in the future.
Also, I really love, that Aronofsky made a brutal and low-class sport such as Wrestling seem beautiful and an elegant art form like ballet seem ugly. I think thats their greatest achievement, the films worked better as companion pieces. Almost being polar opposites despite their obvious similarity and connection.

An actual quote from Aronofsky:
I’ve always considered the two films companion pieces. They are really connected and people will see the connections. It’s funny, because wrestling some consider the lowest art — if they would even call it art — and ballet some people consider the highest art. But what was amazing to me was how similar the performers in both of these worlds are. They both make incredible use of their bodies to express themselves.

'You see, I'm not a Monster. I'm just ahead of the Curve'

All of his movies that I've seen (Pi, Requiem, Fountain, Wrestler, Swan) are about characters that are obsessed over something and gradually lose their minds over it.

Mathematician trying to figure out the mystery of Pi, drug addicts falling deeper and deeper into addiction, a doctor desperately trying to save his wife, a wrestler who has put his life on hold for the sport and a ballerina going nuts over a role and paranoid about losing it. All the main characters put their obsessions first and human relationships second, even when they don't mean to.

So basically Aronofsky's been doing a similar themed thing all along (until Noah, I guess, and haven't seen yet). I for one think it's brilliant! Loved all his movies so far.

lol
everyone already knows this.

~RANKING 2014 FILMS~
imdb.com/list/p5gSdyBFHgI
Last seen: Noah (9/10)

Technically, he's repeated himself with Perfect Blue.

Have no fear, Noah doesn't break the chain. It fits in quite snugly with your (accurate) obsession theory.

My IMDb lists: www.imdb.com/user/ur5570856/lists