You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Yuke ago

The artwork depicts what its name, "Arch of hysteria", represents; the state of hysteria. It doesn't have anything to do with Jeffrey Dahmer.

Commoner ago

Does it matter? It is still a depiction of a man, even though 'hysteria' was mostly associated with women, in writhing pain. Not just a man, but a decapitated man, I don't see that it matters. The artist has something wrong with her. '"This is a feminist statement. It is a document which proves the prejudice of Charcot." (Jean-Martin Charcot [1825-1893], considered the father of modern neurology, was also the teacher of Sigmund Freud.) "For Charcot," Bourgeois said, "the arched body... the hysterical woman... was a subject of entertainment... she was made to be ridiculous and laughable. And hysterical people were always thought to be women. But that is a superstition! This document shows that men were also hysterical. I am trying to prove a point here. Charcot made fun of women... like my father made fun of me." (Quote cited in Wye, Deborah and Carol Smith. “The Prints of Louise Bourgeois.” New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1994, p. 244.)"

Yuke ago

Well it does when someone makes a thread with that information because other people will then take that information to be truth when it's not. I've said it many, many times in my past posts; accuracy is important.

Commoner ago

that is true.