Hysteria
LCC BA Photography Degree Show Piece
2010
This body of work aims to address concerns relating to the visual portrayal of madness and it’s relationship with femininity. From the 19th century through to the present day, madness has largely been defined in feminine terms, as “the essential feminine nature unveiling itself before scientific male rationality” (Showalter, p.3, 1987). The then new, supposedly ‘objective’ technology of photography was used in attempts to categorize society visually in accordance with the pseudo-sciences of physiognomy and phrenology. My objective to is to comment upon the artificial and constructed nature of supposedly ‘documentary’ photographs taken within the context of 19th century mental asylums, which were disproportionately of women. In doing so I aim to raise questions as to how this relates to broader societal concerns, both historically and today, and what the implications of this are and have been for both men and women.
The French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot made extensive use of photography in the women’s wing of the Salpetriere hospital, directing the patients to enact a series of ‘symptoms’ as he defined them for the gaze of the camera. Yet the actual experience and suffering of these women was negated, their words dismissed as nonsensical ramblings. Women have throughout history been defined largely in visual terms, which is perhaps more apparent today than ever. The photographs taken in the context of 19th century psychiatry were studio-based, staged and directed. Sigmund Freud visited Charcot’s lectures on hysteria, describing them as “little masterpiece(s) in construction and composition, perfect in style… the subject demonstrated remained before one’s eye’s for the rest of the day” (Didi-Huberman, p.138). Although seemingly entirely unintentional, his description is very telling; ‘masterpiece’, ‘construction’, ‘composition’ and ‘style’ allude more to theatre and art than to the field of sciences or medicine, and are consistent with the theoretical framework underpinning my work.
My understanding of the history and issues surrounding gender and hysteria were informed primarily by Elaine Showalter’s books ‘The Female Malady’ (1987), and ‘Hystories’ (1997). I found these to be most in line with my own thoughts on the subject matter- although feminist in her views this is not taken to an extreme level. As a literary critic her approach incorporates a critique of some of the more extreme responses to hysteria by feminists, which has allowed me to maintain an open-minded approach. Additionally, Georges Didi-Huberman’s ‘Invention of Hysteria’ has been invaluable in considering the cultural history of hysteria and how photography was utilized within this.
This project relates to earlier work addressing mental health issues in young women. Although entirely different in visual approach, one of the primary intentions of the earlier project was to demonstrate the invisibility of psychological issues. I aimed to normalize what has often been either sensationalized or stigmatized, as well as avoiding the power-relations often implicit in documentary photography since the subjects were people I know as opposed to a distant social group construed as ‘other’. More recently, I worked on a set of portraits of young boys and girls with their collections of toys. This highlighted the extent to which gender differences are largely shaped by culture. The combination of issues that arose from both these short projects led me to explore in more depth the extent to which ‘madness’ has historically been culturally coded as female.
Although addressing similar issues, this body of work takes a more considered and conceptual approach. A ‘documentary’ type approach would have been inappropriate, since the historic use of apparently documentary photography is something that I am calling into question. My approach is to focus on the visual, the feminine, the theatrical and the performative aspects implicit in existing visual portrayals of femininity and madness. Loosely based upon the gestures in photographs taken to demonstrate the phases of hysterical attacks for Jean-Martin Charcot’s ‘Photographic Iconographies’, in removing the gestures from this rigid context, I aim to encourage the viewer to consider the actual experience of these women, as opposed to their ‘symptoms’. Additionally, I aim to raise questions regarding the truth-value traditionally ascribed to the photograph, as well was highlighting the performative aspects of hysteria and perhaps gender itself. As pointed out by John Tagg, the “photograph is not a magical ‘emanation’, but a material product of a material apparatus set to work in specific contexts, by force, for more less defined purposes” (1988, p.3). Rather than appropriate visual codes of documentary photography, the aim is for the work to appear more like a kind of performance, with visual cues emphasizing the constructed nature of the photographs made visible within both the photographs themselves and the method of presentation. In doing so I aim to recontextualize ‘hysterical’ gesture as a valid and comprehensible way of expressing emotion, particularly at a time in which women “suffered from a lack of a public voice to articulate their... oppression” (Showalter, p57, 1997).
The title of the work, ‘Hysteria’, has historically had negative connotations. Although there were male hysterics, it has been very much linked to the feminine (the term itself being derived from the Greek for uterus). Hysteria is no longer a formal medical diagnosis, thus raising the question as to whether it existed at all or whether it was a cultural construct. Today, there are an ever-increasing number of psychological diagnoses abounding. In using a now defunct term as a title, I aim to encourage the viewer to consider whether this is a necessarily helpful approach, and instead to contemplate the experience of the sufferer instead of the ‘disorder’ as defined in medical terms.
The presentation of the work alludes to issues surrounding fragmentation of identity and the body. The broken glass and torn paper also refers to notions of mental distress in common parlance such as “cracking up”, “broken”, “shattered”, “torn” and so on. The re-sealing with glue can be seen as an attempt at ‘healing’. The hanging of the images refers to fragility and instability, yet conversely also suggests a freedom of expression that the controlled nature of rigid print and frame sizes positioned on a wall would deny. This manner of presentation was influenced by Annette Messager, particularly ‘My Vows’ which similarly explores themes of fragmentation, although more specifically to the body. The varying sizes of the prints reaffirms that there is no singular, finished, or more important image, or one essential ‘truth’ within photography.
Bibliography:
Didi-Huberman, G. (2004). Invention of Hysteria: Charcot and the Photographic Iconography of the Salpetriere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Tagg, J. (1988). The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Showalter, E. (1987). The Female Malady: Women, Madness & English Culture, 1830-1980. London: Virago Press.
Showalter, E (1997). Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Culture. London: Picador.
2010
This body of work aims to address concerns relating to the visual portrayal of madness and it’s relationship with femininity. From the 19th century through to the present day, madness has largely been defined in feminine terms, as “the essential feminine nature unveiling itself before scientific male rationality” (Showalter, p.3, 1987). The then new, supposedly ‘objective’ technology of photography was used in attempts to categorize society visually in accordance with the pseudo-sciences of physiognomy and phrenology. My objective to is to comment upon the artificial and constructed nature of supposedly ‘documentary’ photographs taken within the context of 19th century mental asylums, which were disproportionately of women. In doing so I aim to raise questions as to how this relates to broader societal concerns, both historically and today, and what the implications of this are and have been for both men and women.
The French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot made extensive use of photography in the women’s wing of the Salpetriere hospital, directing the patients to enact a series of ‘symptoms’ as he defined them for the gaze of the camera. Yet the actual experience and suffering of these women was negated, their words dismissed as nonsensical ramblings. Women have throughout history been defined largely in visual terms, which is perhaps more apparent today than ever. The photographs taken in the context of 19th century psychiatry were studio-based, staged and directed. Sigmund Freud visited Charcot’s lectures on hysteria, describing them as “little masterpiece(s) in construction and composition, perfect in style… the subject demonstrated remained before one’s eye’s for the rest of the day” (Didi-Huberman, p.138). Although seemingly entirely unintentional, his description is very telling; ‘masterpiece’, ‘construction’, ‘composition’ and ‘style’ allude more to theatre and art than to the field of sciences or medicine, and are consistent with the theoretical framework underpinning my work.
My understanding of the history and issues surrounding gender and hysteria were informed primarily by Elaine Showalter’s books ‘The Female Malady’ (1987), and ‘Hystories’ (1997). I found these to be most in line with my own thoughts on the subject matter- although feminist in her views this is not taken to an extreme level. As a literary critic her approach incorporates a critique of some of the more extreme responses to hysteria by feminists, which has allowed me to maintain an open-minded approach. Additionally, Georges Didi-Huberman’s ‘Invention of Hysteria’ has been invaluable in considering the cultural history of hysteria and how photography was utilized within this.
This project relates to earlier work addressing mental health issues in young women. Although entirely different in visual approach, one of the primary intentions of the earlier project was to demonstrate the invisibility of psychological issues. I aimed to normalize what has often been either sensationalized or stigmatized, as well as avoiding the power-relations often implicit in documentary photography since the subjects were people I know as opposed to a distant social group construed as ‘other’. More recently, I worked on a set of portraits of young boys and girls with their collections of toys. This highlighted the extent to which gender differences are largely shaped by culture. The combination of issues that arose from both these short projects led me to explore in more depth the extent to which ‘madness’ has historically been culturally coded as female.
Although addressing similar issues, this body of work takes a more considered and conceptual approach. A ‘documentary’ type approach would have been inappropriate, since the historic use of apparently documentary photography is something that I am calling into question. My approach is to focus on the visual, the feminine, the theatrical and the performative aspects implicit in existing visual portrayals of femininity and madness. Loosely based upon the gestures in photographs taken to demonstrate the phases of hysterical attacks for Jean-Martin Charcot’s ‘Photographic Iconographies’, in removing the gestures from this rigid context, I aim to encourage the viewer to consider the actual experience of these women, as opposed to their ‘symptoms’. Additionally, I aim to raise questions regarding the truth-value traditionally ascribed to the photograph, as well was highlighting the performative aspects of hysteria and perhaps gender itself. As pointed out by John Tagg, the “photograph is not a magical ‘emanation’, but a material product of a material apparatus set to work in specific contexts, by force, for more less defined purposes” (1988, p.3). Rather than appropriate visual codes of documentary photography, the aim is for the work to appear more like a kind of performance, with visual cues emphasizing the constructed nature of the photographs made visible within both the photographs themselves and the method of presentation. In doing so I aim to recontextualize ‘hysterical’ gesture as a valid and comprehensible way of expressing emotion, particularly at a time in which women “suffered from a lack of a public voice to articulate their... oppression” (Showalter, p57, 1997).
The title of the work, ‘Hysteria’, has historically had negative connotations. Although there were male hysterics, it has been very much linked to the feminine (the term itself being derived from the Greek for uterus). Hysteria is no longer a formal medical diagnosis, thus raising the question as to whether it existed at all or whether it was a cultural construct. Today, there are an ever-increasing number of psychological diagnoses abounding. In using a now defunct term as a title, I aim to encourage the viewer to consider whether this is a necessarily helpful approach, and instead to contemplate the experience of the sufferer instead of the ‘disorder’ as defined in medical terms.
The presentation of the work alludes to issues surrounding fragmentation of identity and the body. The broken glass and torn paper also refers to notions of mental distress in common parlance such as “cracking up”, “broken”, “shattered”, “torn” and so on. The re-sealing with glue can be seen as an attempt at ‘healing’. The hanging of the images refers to fragility and instability, yet conversely also suggests a freedom of expression that the controlled nature of rigid print and frame sizes positioned on a wall would deny. This manner of presentation was influenced by Annette Messager, particularly ‘My Vows’ which similarly explores themes of fragmentation, although more specifically to the body. The varying sizes of the prints reaffirms that there is no singular, finished, or more important image, or one essential ‘truth’ within photography.
Bibliography:
Didi-Huberman, G. (2004). Invention of Hysteria: Charcot and the Photographic Iconography of the Salpetriere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Tagg, J. (1988). The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Showalter, E. (1987). The Female Malady: Women, Madness & English Culture, 1830-1980. London: Virago Press.
Showalter, E (1997). Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Culture. London: Picador.
