contextual studies

My starting point for this project was Louise Bourgeois. I not only love her work, but am fascinated with the autobiographical components of her work. I planned on doing more research into her work and looking at it in context to Umberto Uno’s concept of an open work, however, things quickly took a turn. 

I decided to focus on the sewing aspect of Bourgeois’ later work, which then guided me to look at female gendered craft traditions as a whole. 

In December of 2021, I visited home for a long weekend, and was lucky that my grandmother from the States was visiting at that time. My grandmother, being a big sewer and quilter, and having passed down her knowledge to my mother, sat down with me and the three of us had a conversation about their ties to sewing and what it all meant to them. My mother brought out her needlework from college and we ended up looking at old family photos, my mother and grandmother pointing out clothing that they had sewn. 

I then began my research and looked mainly at Judy Chicago’s Birth Project and Tracey Emin’s quilts. It was interesting to see how these respective artists talked about the importance of sewing and stitching and I quickly came to realise that it wasn’t just the technique they used in their work that was important, but there was always this recurring theme of motherhood. 

So, for this project, I am exploring the theme of motherhood alongside female craft traditions, and how these practices, which have for the longest time been regarded as crafts, have made their way into contemporary art and the importance of mothers passing down their legacies to their daughters. 

I had a hard time starting writing. This is not unusual for me - I tend to get caught up in reading and researching and thinking about it, but it’s getting it down on paper that I find difficult. I had the added difficulty of transcribing my interview, but I have managed to get that sorted, which ultimately got the ball rolling. 

I want to include parts of the conversation I had with my family into my final outcome. I am going to use parts of the conversations as “introductions” to different themes and analyses of different artists. I will break up the interview in chronological order, roughly being: needlework/gender roles in the household - sewing textiles - quilting. I want there to be two parallels - personal, anecdotal conversation followed by research into artists’ work that have used the same techniques (ie conversation about needlework followed by an analysis of Judy Chicago’s Birth Project)

I aim to create a magazine as my final outcome. I want a format that allows me to add lots of visuals, as these really support not only the conversational parts of my final outcome, but also the research into artists’. 

Hysteria was once a catch all diagnosis for anything that seemed to be wrong with women, wether that be pain, infertility, irritability, women acting too feminine or not feminine enough. It was a disease that was thought to be caused by the uterus and was later defined as a mental illness by Sigmund Freud. Nowadays, what was thought to be the mental illness hysteria has been divided into different diagnosis such as somatisation disorder or multiple personality disorder. The Cambridge dictionary defines: 

hysteria noun [ U ]

/hɪˈstɪə.ri.ə/

extreme fear, excitement, anger, etc. that cannot be controlled

It has always been seen as a woman’s disease and the modern definition of uncontrollable emotion is still deeply rooted in misogyny. 

In the following blog posts, I will be diving into the history of hysteria and giving a clearer understanding of how the disease has evolved over the last centuries, as well as how it has affected women. I will also be talking about the disease endometriosis and how hysteria is at its origin and how similarly women suffering of endometriosis are treated in comparison to women who were thought to have hysteria. I will explore the work of Louise Bourgeois, a French-American artist who self diagnosed herself with hysteria as well as the works of Surrealists Salvador Dali and André Breton before presenting my final conclusions, additional sources and graphic media updates. 

Kendra Cherra (2020) verywellmind: What Is Hysteria? The Past and Present. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-hysteria-2795232#:~:text=Hysteria%20is%20a%20term%20used,excessive%20and%20out%20of%20control. (Accessed: 14 April 2021) 

The essay women and Hysteria in the History of Mental Health by Cecilia Tasca, Mariangela Rapetti, Mauro Giovanni Carta and Bianca Fadda gives an insightful understanding of how mental illness and hysteric women have been seen and thought of throughout history. From the idea of the wandering womb to freudian ideas linking to the Oedipus complex, it gives a clear understanding on how women with mental illness were and still are perceived in society.

In Ancient Egypt (2000 BC), it was believed that hysterical states were caused by a movement of the uterus. The illness was treated by firstly identifying wether the uterus had moved upwards or lowered itself in the body, then tried to be moved back to its original place by placing malodorous scents near the nose or vagina. This belief was shared amongst Ancient Greeks as well, who named it the ‘wandering womb’. Hippocrates was the first to use the term hysteria which is derived from the Greek word uterus (hystera). 

Similar ideas to those pf Hippocrates can be traced back to Claudius Galen (2nd century AD) in ancient Rome. He wrote: ‘Passio hysterica unum nomes est, varia tamen et innumera accidentia sub se comprehendit’, which translates to ‘hysterical passion is the name, but various and several are its symptoms’. (Tasca, Rapetti, Carta, Fadda, 2012, p. 111)

In the Middle Ages, hysteric women were not seen as patients, but as the cause of their illness, which they called ‘amor heroycus’ or the madness of love, unfulfilled sexual desire. During the 11th century, the first female doctor of Christian Europe, Trutola de Ruggiero from Salermo, believed that women were more vulnerable than men and that their suffering was intimate as it dealt with gynaecological issues and that women therefore felt ashamed and wouldn’t seek help.  The German female doctor Hildegard of Bingen played a very important role in the reconciliation of science and faith; she believed that hysteria was brought to women by Evil and that patients should accept their fate. 

As the church aimed to unify Europe at the beginning of the 13th century, mental illnesses were seen as obscene bonds between women and the devil, which lead to hysterical women being subjected to exorcisms. It was believed that if a physician was unable to diagnose the cause of an illness, it must stem from the devil, because the devil knew everything about the human existence and could therefore easily interfere with a more vulnerable, or hysterical, person. Up until the 18th century, hundreds and thousands of women were wrongfully executed on the basis of false confessions obtained through torture. 

During the renaissance period, theologist and physician Giovan Battista Codronchi (1547-1628) criticised the treatment of hysteria, which at the time consisted of midwives inserting fingers into the patient’s vagina to stimulate an orgasm. Condrochi strongly argued that the treatment of hysteria should lay in the practice of spiritual guides. Nonetheless, the idea of male superiority was very much present at the time, as physicians still saw hysteria as a female disease caused by the uterus. 

René Descartes (1596-1650) was the first to introduce the idea that hysteria was not linked to the uterus but to the brain. In 1680, English physician Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689) published Epistolary Dissertation on the Hysterical Affections in which he recognised that hysterical symptoms may simulate all sorts of diseases and demonstrated that the uterus was not at the basis of the disease.

In 1748, Joseph Raulin defined hysteria as an affection vaporeuse arguing that the illness could be caused by foul air in large cities. Following this theory, both men and women could be affected by the disease, however, women are more at risk as they were deemed “lazy and irritable”.

In the Enlightenment period, mental illness was seen from a scientific point of view for the very first time and hysteria was described as one of the most complex diseases.

In the 18th century, the belief that hysteria was linked to the brain became more and more popular and it was no longer seen as an illness that was purely female, but could affected both genders.

Neuropsychiatrist Pierre Janet (1859-1947) opened a laboratory at the Salpêtière in Paris alongside neurologist Jean Martin Charcot (1825-1893). Janet was convinced that hypnosis was the best option when it came to the investigation and therapy of hysteric patients. He argued that “the patient’s own idea of pathology is translated into a physical disability”.

Until Sigmund Freud (1865-1939) hysteria was believed to be the consequence of a lack of conception and motherhood. Freud contradicted this theory with his belief that hysteria was an illness caused by a lack of libidinal evolution and the inability to conceive was a symptom of the disease rather than its cause. He linked hysteria to the Oedipal conflict, arguing that hysteria causes the inability to fulfil the sexual drive because of it. 

The history of hysteria is very lengthy and is are its social changes and its evolution throughout those years. A closer look at this historical development and interpretations of mental illness contributes to giving an explanation of psychopathological expression. It may also open a new discussion about introducing new cognitive systems adapted to new social requirements. 

Looking at the history of hysteria also provides an insight of how women have been seen and treated, starting off by being seen as a means of Evil, to fragile things, to a person of her fate. 

Endometriosis is not a solely physical disease, it also affects women in society, joining the female anatomy and women’s role in society. The illness is defined by the ‘wandering’ of the lining of the uterus, therefore linking it in some way to the ancient Greek theories of the wandering uterus and ultimately linking it to hysteria. Endometriosis is often seen as an enigma or riddle, much like hysteria has been viewed and thought of for centuries. The diagnosis, treatment and views of women suffering of endometriosis are clearly rooted in the ancient ideas of hysteria and the wandering womb. 

Hysteria has been the focus of many historians, scientists, artists and writers. It was first thought to be a purely physical illness, however, unable to be cured by physicians, it was concluded to be a mental illness. The symptoms of what was thought to be hysteria and the symptoms of women suffering of endometriosis are very similar; fainting, pains, infertility, as well as menstrual, sexual and gastrointestinal issues and they are both thought to be caused by an abnormal functioning or movement of the uterus. In the case of hysteria the womb was though to either move upwards of downwards within the body, and needed to be brought back to its original position in the body. However, in cases of endometriosis, it is the uterine lining that moves within the abdomen, causing pains and other symptoms. 

It is important to make a clear distinction between uterus and womb. The uterus is an anatomical organ, responsible for pregnancy and child birth, whereas the womb “functions as a symbol of desire, of cultural and social images of archetypal women, and prescriptions for traditional gender roles based on the physical functions of the uterus.” (Jones, 2015) The uterus prepares itself for pregnancy every month and when inseminated, bears a child, and the womb tells us the cultural significance of all of this. 

Having a closer look at the language used around endometriosis and hysteria, it becomes clear that there are poignant similarities. The word endometriosis is made up of the Greek endo meaning within, metri which is derived from the Greek metra or uterus, and osis, a suffix meaning abnormal or diseased. The word endometriosis points to a faulty, troublesome uterus, and itself invokes the image of a hysterical wandering womb. The terms hysteria and endometriosis lead to believe that women suffering of these conditions have a malfunctioning uterus, but in reality, they have more to do with the symbolic womb. 

The discussions around hysteria and endometriosis bring light to la condition féminine and misogynistic stereotypes by changing the narrative from a troublesome uterus to an unsolvable woman.

“Mark Micale (1995) shows how hysteria became synonymous with woman: “hysteria may be interpreted as a key medical metaphor for la condition féminine” because it stood for “everything that men found irritating or, irascible, mysterious or unmanageable, in the opposite sex”; furthermore he claims, physicians found that “The wildly shifting physical symptomology of the disease … mirrored the irrational, capricious, and unpredictable nature of Woman.”” (Jones, 2015)

The highly feminised symptoms of hysteria are linked to the highly gendered symptoms of endometriosis through the psychological symptoms of a contemporary mental condition that descended from hysteria: somatisation disorder, a mental illness often characterised by symptomatic female reproductive processes where there is no biological basis.

One can argue that the focus on the uterus is resulted from a historical tendency to fuse uterus with womb and the medical tendency to see disease in something that is other than the body. The uterus is simultaneously considered an essential part of what it means to be a woman and yet it is  so easily removable. The uterus is essentially useless unless a woman wants to bear a child and does not want to use a gestational carrier. This suggests that the uterus serves no function other than pregnancy and is detachable if this need is not present.

Hysteria is a central topic of French-American artist Louise Bourgeois’ later work. Self diagnosed as hysteric, she used stitching, stuffing and fabric to create her later sculptures, processes and materials that are very much associated as female tradition, to represent the hysterical female body.

As hysteria was particularly studied and popularised in 19th century France, especially due to a neurology clinic set up by Jean-Martin Charcot at La Salpêtière in Paris, Bourgeois’ interest in hysteria grew more and more. Bourgeois expressed in her early diary entries that she detected symptoms of hysteria in herself, she seemed to be able to pinpoint disturbing childhood memories, but her symptoms would always remain. This coincides with what was thought to be a typical trait of hysteria: a patient discovering new symptoms of the disease at the same rate that they were being ‘cured’. She saw hysteria as more of a character trait than a disease with specific traits, which may explain why she never seemed bothered with the fact that she had self diagnosed herself. She saw it as a condition of her existence.

When Bourgeois began her career in sculpture, hysteria was starting to disappear as a commonly used diagnosis, as its symptoms were separated into different mental illnesses such as anorexia or multiple personality disorder. She agreed with Simone de Beauvoir’s beliefs on hysteria, who in her writings The Second Sex argues: “woman's body is singularly “hysterical” in that there is often no distance between conscious facts and their organic expression' and 'because of the close connection between endocrine secretions and nervous and sympathetic systems commanding muscles and viscera.” (Souter, 2020) However, Bourgeois saw hysteria as a means of representing the female bodily experience and de Beauvoir saw it more as a weakness. 

Bourgeois first attempted to represent the hysterical body through sculpture in the early 1990s. She used her long time assistant Jerry Gorovoy to make a mould of an arched body, a process he would later describe to be very painful. She later altered the cast in order to obtain a greater arch and cut off its head to create her bronze sculpture The Arch of Hysteria (1993). The act of cutting off the head of the sculpture pays reference to the Iconographie Photographique de la Salpêtière, where hysterical women’s heads were hidden or visually cut off in photographs. Moreover, Bourgeois argues that the cutting “means being in total control. Accepting total control of whatever happens and it is quite aggressive.” (Souter, 2020) Gorovoy also recalls Bourgeois saying that “Charcot always liked to see women go into the arch of hysteria, but men did it too. But [Charcot and his colleagues] preferred, since most of them were men, to see the women do it, and she said that she wanted to do the opposite, to see a man in that position.” (Souter, 2020) This also proves that Bourgeois was well aware of the voyeuristic nature that surrounded hysteria in the earlier 20th century. This is also reflected in Bourgeois’ choice of using bronze, a material praised for it polished quality, yet is easily tarnished with every touch leaving a visible mark. 

Around the turn of the 21st century, Bourgeois began using fabric to create her sculptures. Arched Figure (1999) draws reference to her 1993 The Arch of Hysteria and depicts a woman suspended by her navel in an ambiguous state of either pleasure or pain or some mixture of both. Moreover, the pink patches of fabric sewn together resemble human flesh. Despite the patchwork looking like the fabric was sewn together at random, the scraps were pulled together meticulously, Bourgeois payed close mind to the shape of the figure. She carefully chose the pieces of fabric in order to create the shape of a female figure, giving it eyes and a gaping mouth, somewhat resembling female genitalia. The sculpture hangs suspended without clothes or hair, but it is clearly a female figure. Bourgeois stated “the two dimensions do not satisfy me. I have to have the reality given by the third dimension.” (Souter, 2020) She used her work to embody this ‘third dimension’, referring to the fact that hysteria is real rather than something theatrical that is to be watched. 

The Surrealists viewed hysteria as a state in which artistic expression could run freely and the portrayal of hysteric women is very present in their work. However, these women were not given a voice, but rather subjected to an overly sexualised, voyeuristic male gaze. In his novel Nadja, André Breton argues “Beaty will be CONVULSIVE or it will not be”, (Souter, 2020) referring to hysteria. He points towards his belief that all Surrealists should strive for convulsiveness. However, aiming towards this ‘convulsiveness’ was empowering for Surrealists men, but degrading for the hysterical woman. 

In 1928, Breton alongside Louis Aragon published an article in La Révolution Surréaliste which featured photographs of patient Augustine at La Salpêtière. They wrote:

“We who like nothing so much as youthful hysterics – the perfect example of which is furnished by observations relating to the delightful X.L. (Augustine) [...]. Does Freud, who owes so much to Charcot, remember the time – confirmed by the survivors – when interns at the Salpêtrière confused their professional duties and their taste for love? Hysteria is not a pathological phenomenon and can be considered in every respect a supreme means of expression.” (Souter, 2020)

Salvador Dali’s photomontage The Phenomenon of Ecstasy (1933) shows a variety of women in hysterical states, all looking away from the camera. They either have their eyes closed or are looking away, making it unclear wether they are in pain or experiencing pleasure, which is exactly how the hysterical women of the Salpêtière in Paris were photographed. Dali however did not use clinical photographs of patients like André Breton or Aragon did and he believed hysteria was part of the condition of femininity in general. His photographs clearly embody the male voyeuristic gaze.  

Souter, A. (2020) ‘Women’s Work: Representing the hysterical body in the late work of Louise Bourgeois.’, JM Art Managment. Available at: https://www.jmartmanagement.com/post/women-s-work-representing-the-hysterical-body-in-the-late-works-of-louise-bourgeois (Accessed: 25 March 2021)

It is evident that the history of hysteria is very lengthy. The idea of what causes women, to essentially be women, has changed a lot all whilst remaining the same: very misogynistic. Women have been punished and blamed for being in pain, being infertile, being too feminine or not feminine enough, being irritable. The constant has always remained the uterus. Still today, women are penalised for having a uterus; they are treated poorly, harassed, given less chances in life compared to their male counterparts. Although the notion of what hysteria means has changed, it no longer being seen as illness, its modern definition is still an insult to women. Women are labelled hysteric for having emotions or being too loud or being ‘out of control’. It is a term still associated with women and used to degrade them for being women. As hysteria is no longer classified as a mental illness and its symptoms have been subcategorised into several illnesses such as BPD, somatisation disorder or endometriosis, women suffering of the latter are still seen as ‘hysteric’.

Furthermore, it is very interesting to see how Louise Bourgeois was able to turn her pain into art. Self-diagnosed with hysteria at a time where hysteria was thought to be a mental illness, she recognised the symptoms in herself and was able to embody this feeling and her experiences in her sculptures, paying close attention to details and process. On the other hand, the Surrealists were fascinated with hysteria but handled the embodiment of it completely differently. Using images of hospitalised women to present their idea of ‘artistic freedom’, they exploited suffering women, not bearing in mind that they had the privilege to see hysteria as a state to strive for as men whilst women were shamed for it. Moreover, their male voyeuristic gaze did bring light to topic, but silenced the women who were suffering. 

Figure 1: Bourgeois, L. (1993) The Arch of Hysteria [Bronze, polished patina] Collection The Easton Foundation, New York. Available at: https://www.moma.org/audio/playlist/42/681 (Accessed: 12 April 2021)

Figure 2: Bourgeois, L. (1992) Untitled (Study for Arch of Hysteria) [Gouache and Pencil on Tracing Paper] Collection The Easton Foundation, New York. Available at: https://www.moma.org/s/lb/collection_lb/object/object_objid-195588.html (Accessed: 12 April 2021)

Figure 3: Bourgeois, L (2000) The Arch of Hysteria [Fabric] Collection The Easton Foundation, New York. Available at: https://www.jmartmanagement.com/post/women-s-work-representing-the-hysterical-body-in-the-late-works-of-louise-bourgeois (Accessed: 25 March 2021)

Figure 4: Breton, A., Aragon, L. (1928) Journal La Révolution Surréaliste, photographs of Augustine. Available at: https://www.jmartmanagement.com/post/women-s-work-representing-the-hysterical-body-in-the-late-works-of-louise-bourgeois (Accessed: 25 March 2021)

Burton, S. (2019) ‘Calling Women ‘Hysterical’ Has Set Our Treatment Back Centuries’, Huffington Post. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/women-hysterical-sexism-medicine_n_5c9917a2e4b057f7330e4ca9?ri18n=true (Accessed: 13 April 2021)

De Beauvoir, S. (2011) The Second Sex. London: Vintage Classics.

Forbes (2018) ‘Women Are Often Discriminated Against As Medical Patients. Here’s The Historical reason Why.’, Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/08/24/women-are-often-discriminated-against-as-medical-patients-heres-the-historical-reason-why/?sh=1f8063042abc (Accessed: 3 March 2021) 

Hauser & Wirth (2010) Louise Bourgeois: The Fabric Works. Available at: https://www.hauserwirth.com/hauser-wirth-exhibitions/3595-louise-bourgeois-the-fabric-works (Accessed: 13 April 2021)

MoMA (2017) Louise Bourgeois. Available at: https://www.moma.org/artists/710 (Accessed: 12 April 2021)

Souter, A. (2019) ‘The Dark Side of Surrealism that exploited Women’s “Hysteria”’, Artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-dark-side-surrealism-exploited-womens-hysteria (Accessed: 14 April 2021)

Tate Modern. Artist Rooms: Louise Bourgeois (Resource Pack). Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/file/artist-rooms-louise-bourgeois-learning-resource (Accessed: 17 April 2021)

Tate Modern. Look Closer: The Art of Louise Bourgeois. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/louise-bourgeois-2351/art-louise-bourgeois (Accessed: 12 April 2021)