The Pizzagate Wiki entry is nonsense upon nonsense.

Arch of Hysteria Bourgeois' work, Arch of Hysteria, is prominently featured in Tony Podesta's art collection. It bears a striking resemblance to a Polaroid photo of a victim of the cannibal, Jeffrey Dahmer

This is if you completely ignore the placement of the arms and legs.

Arch of Hysteria is often suspended from a ceiling by a cable in its pelvic region, but it also may be presented in a recreation of a cellar, with a large saw and the sculpture lying on a bed.

These are two different works from a long term series she did. The one next to the saw is female is called Arched Figure. The pizzagate wiki doesn't not seem to know that she did a lot of these some with heads, some without. Some with arms, some without, some male, some female. She even did a little sketch of herself as the arch in a Self Portrait show. http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/768/w155h170crop/CRI_263768.jpg I don't think she wanted to be a murder victim.

According to Bourgeois, the work's name and inspiration is a reference to a classic view of "hysteria," a traditionally female malady as it was originally linked to premenstrual syndrome.[2] An 1824 engraving by Charles Bell provides one illustration using a male.[3]

Neither link 2 or 3 show Bourgeois's inspiration, it is specifically Charcot's work on hysteria and the contortion he called the "arc de cercle." The Bell engraving does not show a hysteric, but someone suffering from tetanus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opisthotonus. Either way, Bell's illustration is irrelevant as it was an illustration from Charcot's work she used.

However, there is one key difference between Bourgeois' work and all other portrayals of "hysteria" - no other portrayal has the subject's head severed.

This is just lousy art criticism. When Rodin sculpted hand of a pianist? Are we supposed to think this hand was severed from a body? Or does Rodin just want us to focus only on the hand. https://boutique.musee-rodin.fr/96-1796/hand-of-a-pianist-rodin.jpg The Arch of Hysteria does not show a figure with a severed head. It never had a head. It's a sculpture, an abstraction. It doesn't breathe, it doesn't bleed. the fact that it never had a head is no indication of violence.

Discussion Over Whether Dahmer's Photos Influenced Bourgeois

Hint: They did not.

The Pizzagate Wiki then goes into a convoluted discussion about when these images of Dahmer's victims were first seen by the public. This section is oddly written because it doesn't spell out what it's responding to. It's responding to a specific charge that Louise Bourgeois could not be influenced by that photo of that Jeffrey Dahmer victim in 1993 because that image was not public in 1993. But it doesn't want to say it that plainly because that would undermine the accusation it's making. Look how oddly this written and how long it take to get to the fact that the first documented appearance is in textbook on murder in 1996.

Arch of Hysteria was first released in 1993.[4] Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested on July 22, 1991.[5] On February 15, 1992, his first trial concluded.[6] The Polaroid photos he took of his victims provided key evidence against him in his criminal trial. The adjoining photo is one of 74 others.[7] Evidence in criminal trials is often made available to the public after it is shown in court or after the case has concluded. "[T]he public's right of access to judicial records is protected by various legal sources. After-the-fact access to evidence, however, is less certain, although some courts have adopted the view that the public has a right to access such evidence, absent exceptional circumstances."[8][Archived Version] Needless to say, the Court in the Dahmer trial showed no attempt to conceal the proceedings from the public. In fact, the Jeffrey Dahmer trial was televised publicly on CourtTV.[9][Archived Version] It was arguably one of the 11 most-watched trials in history.[10][Archived Version] While it is unclear what Polaroid photos, if any, were shown on television, the photos were made publicly available. That is how Vernon Gerberth was able to acquire them for his 1996 book, Practical Homicide Investigation, for example.

Do they really think they were going to show these gruesome photos on TV in 1992? In fact, we know that they did not because the pizzagate wiki links to the evidence when they talk about the most watched trials. There is no support whatsoever for this sentence. "Needless to say, the Court in the Dahmer trial showed no attempt to conceal the proceedings from the public."

Court TV was there—but on a 10-second delay, in order to carefully edit out those exhibits and discussions that might be too disturbing to viewers.

The section ends with sheer speculation because they know they don't have any evidence these images were available in 1993. They seem to first show up in a specialized textbook on murder 3 years after her sculpture is completed.

Given the high-profile nature of the Dahmer case, the occasional portrayal of the Arch of Hysteria in a scenario reminiscent of a slaughterhouse, and Bourgeois' previous works showing her interest in cannibalism, it is not unreasonable to think that she may have taken an interest in the case, seen the Dahmer photo, and allowed it to influence her work, which would be released a year later.

Let's put this a statement that can be discovered to be true or false.

In addition to the fact that Bourgeois, started her arches in 1989, the Bourgeois/Dahmer connection is false because Jeffrey Dahmer crime scene photos were not public in 1993, they were first shown in a 1996 text book on murder.