Art Criticism - The State University of New York

Art Criticism - The State University of New York Art Criticism - The State University of New York

dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu
from dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu More from this publisher
25.12.2013 Views

still is traditionally associated with the psychological makeup of artists. Many of the literary and artistic masters of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries exhibited "token" hysterical traits. Those with decadent personalities (traditionally male literary and artistic figures) often have within their psyche elements of hysteria. Famous examples are Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde. These men are often seen as "tormented by their time," but women, exhibiting similar traits of the decadent personality, are viewed as hysterics. As we well know, Baudelaire and Wilde were not universally admired during their lives. But they were not placed within the confines of a mental institution or thought of as incurably "mad." This splitting, in which male symptoms are regarded as inherently "positive" and female symptoms as inherently "negative," clearly shows strict stereotyping of male in contrast to female roles. The brothers Edmund and Jules Goncourt represented many such decadent personalities in their work, and at times exhibited hysterical attributes themselves. 38 Much of their writing, including a jointly written account of their daily lives from 1851-1896,39 is preoccupied with illness and degeneration. 40 Jules, the more "highly strung and delicate" ofthe two brothers, suffered from a nervous breakdown before dying in June of 1879. He was described during his life as volatile, quick-witted, mischievous and spoiled. Edmund, the older of the two, was slow, serious, poetic, eccentric, and phlegmatic. 41 Robert Baldick, the translator of their Journal, describes the men: This astonishing partnership owed its cohesion and duration-for the Goncourts lived and worked together for over twenty years with never more than a few hours apart-not only to the brothers' affection and regard for each other but also to their fear, suspicion, and dislike of the outside world. They were sick men, tortured by their stomachs, their livers, and their nerves; sick men with high ideals, living in a world where everything and everyone wounded their delicate sensibilities or outraged their sense of values. 42 It becomes apparent from this passage that the Goncourts themselves disdained the modern way of life (which made them "nervous") as did the patients in previously mentioned cases of female hysteria or "nervousness." The other component of their ailments were their problematic family and sexual lives, which they often recall in the Journal. These events clearly contributed . to their menta!' illness. More particularly, the Goncourts often write of their disdain and disgust for women-a theme prevalent in almost all decadent literature. 43 In 1870, in a discussion with Zola, the brothers stated that "the originality of their work rested on nervous maladies," presumably in themselves and in others.44 The brothers saw their "hysteria" as a necessary component 94 Art Criticism

of the creative decadent personality: Elements of the brothers' neurosis were very similar to those exhibited by Freud and Charcot's hysterics. The difference is that the brothers were viewed as romantically decadent and not hysterical because they were men. But modem stereotypes are only partially to blame. The brothers themselves repeatedly stated that the nervousness and hypersensitivity they saw in themselves and their contemporaries was a form of superiority.45 They believed this superiority was connected with stylistic innovation and highly artistic personality characteristics-what many critics saw as decadent attributes. The Goncourt Brothers characters in the journal (either real or imagined) also exhibited traits which, had they visited Charcot or Freud, would certainly have caused them to be diagnosed as hysterics. For example, in Germinie Lacerteux, the Goncourt's rewrite the story of their trusted maid, who after her death was found to have been stealing from them, engaging in outrageous sexual acts, and drinking heavily. Abhorred by the idea that a woman so close to them could be so "evil," they decided to use her story as a model for a degenerate, hysterical individual in their novel. Interestingly, the parallels Freud's work in that the brothers, in their introduction call it a clinical "study" rather than a "sentimental or vulgar love story."46 What occurs in Freud, Charcot, Nordau, and the Goncourt brothers is a stereotyping of the female figure. Moreover, these men, like many decadent figures, connect women with weakness, and in extreme cases, repulsion. It is precisely this image of women (and its effects on the female psyche of the nineteenth century) that provides the catalyst for hysteria'S popUlarity. Any deviation from the "ideal" woman was thought of as "madness." For men, most "would-be hysterics" were seen as struggling, sensitive, "artistic types" because they did not conform to the stereotypical roles of men in their society. The Goncourt Brothers helped to enforce this new, primarily male stereotype as an aspect of the "decadent personality." The hype that Charcot - and to a lesser extent Freud - created around hysteria led to the idealization and popUlarization of the malady. Hysteria be­ , came the topic of theater, musical, cabaret, and dance events in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The malady itself was very fashionable and idealized - theater critics like Helene Zimmem described some of the most famous French actresses as hysterical women who had found an appropriate outlet for their histrionic personalities.47 Although idealized for some, hysteria became the mal du siecle for the more conservative person, a sign of artistic degeneration.48 However, the hysteric does not simply fade away as the mid-twentieth century advances. Ilza Veith's Hysteria: the History of a Disease (1965)49 notes the "nearly total disappearance" of hysteria, failing to see the new forms of hysteria developing. In fact hysteria is still visible in our world, although, it vol. 17, no. 1 95

still is traditionally associated with the psychological makeup <strong>of</strong> artists. Many<br />

<strong>of</strong> the literary and artistic masters <strong>of</strong> the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries<br />

exhibited "token" hysterical traits. Those with decadent personalities (traditionally<br />

male literary and artistic figures) <strong>of</strong>ten have within their psyche<br />

elements <strong>of</strong> hysteria. Famous examples are Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

men are <strong>of</strong>ten seen as "tormented by their time," but women, exhibiting similar<br />

traits <strong>of</strong> the decadent personality, are viewed as hysterics. As we well know,<br />

Baudelaire and Wilde were not universally admired during their lives. But they<br />

were not placed within the confines <strong>of</strong> a mental institution or thought <strong>of</strong> as<br />

incurably "mad." This splitting, in which male symptoms are regarded as inherently<br />

"positive" and female symptoms as inherently "negative," clearly shows<br />

strict stereotyping <strong>of</strong> male in contrast to female roles.<br />

<strong>The</strong> brothers Edmund and Jules Goncourt represented many such<br />

decadent personalities in their work, and at times exhibited hysterical attributes<br />

themselves. 38 Much <strong>of</strong> their writing, including a jointly written account <strong>of</strong> their<br />

daily lives from 1851-1896,39 is preoccupied with illness and degeneration. 40<br />

Jules, the more "highly strung and delicate" <strong>of</strong>the two brothers, suffered from<br />

a nervous breakdown before dying in June <strong>of</strong> 1879. He was described during<br />

his life as volatile, quick-witted, mischievous and spoiled. Edmund, the older <strong>of</strong><br />

the two, was slow, serious, poetic, eccentric, and phlegmatic. 41 Robert Baldick,<br />

the translator <strong>of</strong> their Journal, describes the men:<br />

This astonishing partnership owed its cohesion and duration-for<br />

the Goncourts lived and worked together for over twenty years<br />

with never more than a few hours apart-not only to the brothers'<br />

affection and regard for each other but also to their fear, suspicion,<br />

and dislike <strong>of</strong> the outside world. <strong>The</strong>y were sick men, tortured by<br />

their stomachs, their livers, and their nerves; sick men with high<br />

ideals, living in a world where everything and everyone wounded<br />

their delicate sensibilities or outraged their sense <strong>of</strong> values. 42<br />

It becomes apparent from this passage that the Goncourts themselves<br />

disdained the modern way <strong>of</strong> life (which made them "nervous") as did the<br />

patients in previously mentioned cases <strong>of</strong> female hysteria or "nervousness."<br />

<strong>The</strong> other component <strong>of</strong> their ailments were their problematic family and sexual<br />

lives, which they <strong>of</strong>ten recall in the Journal. <strong>The</strong>se events clearly contributed<br />

. to their menta!' illness. More particularly, the Goncourts <strong>of</strong>ten write <strong>of</strong> their<br />

disdain and disgust for women-a theme prevalent in almost all decadent<br />

literature. 43<br />

In 1870, in a discussion with Zola, the brothers stated that "the originality<br />

<strong>of</strong> their work rested on nervous maladies," presumably in themselves<br />

and in others.44 <strong>The</strong> brothers saw their "hysteria" as a necessary component<br />

94<br />

<strong>Art</strong> <strong>Criticism</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!