Phenomene de l’extase -Salvador Dali 1933Salvador Dali’s arresting photo-montage The Phenomenon of Ecstasy which features the photographic studies of Charcot’s female hysterics, originally accompanied the artist’s essay on the irrational aspects of art nouveau architecture; in particular the buildings of fellow Catalan Antoni Gaudi, in the magazine Minotaure. His contention that “the repugnant can be transformed into the beautiful” through an ecstasy achieved by continuous erotic activity and that the sexual abandon resulting from hysteria leads to a transformation of perception in art, architecture and indeed modern life markedly shows the influence of the Symbolist and Decadent movements of the latter 19th century upon the Surrealists.
This being Dali and the Surrealist who were past masters at symbolism and believing that body parts represented other parts I think the ears represent the vulva.
The kind of montage that grabs your attention. I had thought “hysterics” had a bad connotation, but I just Googled the definition, and it’s “exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion.” So, ecstasy. I can imagine showing multiple photos of female pleasure in 1933 would’ve caused quite the controversy among viewers.
The decadents in France at the end of the last century were obsessed with the hysterics and were unbelievably misogynistic, so I tied that up with Dali’s montage which is both shocking and beautiful. Have a look at my posts under symbolism where I go into further detail on the decadents
I just read an article in the Independent UK, that “estacy” experienced by our male ancestors is an evolutionary incentive to keep a male attached/loyal to the same female to support their offspring. Since estacy is not essential to reproduction it has to have some other function. In this study which is about female expression, via the male’s rational gaze I think it’s classic psychological projection. Of course, I say this because of the use of the words “hysteria” and “repugnant” with “beautiful” female subjects. Men have always dominated sexual discourse so it makes sense that they would describe the female subject as irrational. I should also point out the implicit assumption that a woman enjoys intercourse. Anthropological studies have concluded that the female orgasm is completely irrelevant to reproduction or the formation of lasting interpersonal or familial bonds. Again, classical psychology and classical projection.
A lot of good points here. You have a certain divide because the Surrealists aimed for the irrational yet had a fear of it. In the Decadent imagination women are more natural, more instinctive and therefore more irrational. This was seen by the Decadents as both a source of strength and weakness. The experiments performed on female patients by Charcot are absolutely bizarre. Dali views are of course completely mad cap. The virulent misogyny of the late 19th century is a feature of not only the Decadents but also Strindberg and Nietzsche (least we forget his whip
Exactly. Are you put that was a belly full of laughs. Of course, I knew you were fully aware that there was some undertone of misogyny going on. I just couldn’t phrase it that way because my brain is right now still enjoying the snow pecan latte I just had at Starbucks.
The misogyny of the Decadents is very hard to ignore, though that doesn’t discredit their work in my opinion, it definitely has to be factored into account. That is a very fancy coffee, Decadent in a different way.
Error correction – Sorry, I meant “how you put that” was funny. I’m still trying to get Siri to behave himself. He is totally hysterical. I might have to whip him, Decadent style. Have a great Wednesday.
Dali’s photo-montage is an eyeful, so busy, yet so well balanced. Nice thought, “the repugnant can be transformed into the beautiful”. Lovely post, thank you Mr. Cake. ~ Miss Cranes
I want to preface this by saying, “for me”, I believe you can dislike an individual/artist, does that diminish the quality of their art? No, especially if you are able to take it in for the pure sake of art, in doing so it may even change your initial feelings about that particular individual/artist, example my buddy André Breton. When I look at the great artists, I believe they are one in the same, they are their greatest artwork, just as we spoke of Warhol, he himself was his greatest creation. But what do I know, I’m just a lowly artist.
An artist can never be lowly, and you are right, you can dislike a person and that doesn’t diminish the work one tiny bit. Lots of quite unpleasant artists who work is top rate.
I have this idea in the far reaches of my memory that the shape of one’s ears was once thought to be an indicator of intelligence. I’d have to go look that up. The 19th century while known for Victorian prudishness certainly produced some wild new ideas.
I think Dali was primarily referencing wars for the Freudian sexual symbolism, plus ears as the seat for balance, hysterics were unbalanced. A lot of similarities with today and the Victorian era, a cult of rationality and an inverse flight from reason. Rapid technological advancements and unprecedented social changes. A cruel and dogmatic upholding of laissez faire economics policy at the expense of people, most famously the British governments indifference in the Irish Potato Famine, all to adhere to the policy. The rise of extremism, both on the right and left. Thanks for the comment
Likewise. Come say hi when you have time. As for the ecstasy face…I think we all know how it feels, but to see a collage of it does highlight it as a very universal human moment, even as it feels very singular and personal.
You have made me look at Dali in a completely different way, certainly about the body parts, was aware in high art with regard hidden symbols not an expert on Dali, will do some research.
Excellent. Mine is mainly art, particularly Surrealism, Modernism and Symbolism and erotic art. Also books and movies. I also have my own stories and poems here as well, with great header image of nothing else. Thanks for the follow and hope you look around. I will visit you site tomorrow, it’s very late over here.
![tumblr_m57f1wxnr41rvulvgo1_1280[1]](https://cakeordeathsite.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/tumblr_m57f1wxnr41rvulvgo1_12801.jpg?w=656)
cakeordeathsite 
Wow, fascinating. What do the ears represent?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This being Dali and the Surrealist who were past masters at symbolism and believing that body parts represented other parts I think the ears represent the vulva.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Love it. At least they acknowledge the vulva.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I will be soon post about the decadents and their views on women and hysteria, it will make the surrealists seem like radical feminists
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dali was an expert on the kind of control needed to keep a chair from toppling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He was expert at many things but mainly self promotion
LikeLiked by 2 people
The kind of montage that grabs your attention. I had thought “hysterics” had a bad connotation, but I just Googled the definition, and it’s “exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion.” So, ecstasy. I can imagine showing multiple photos of female pleasure in 1933 would’ve caused quite the controversy among viewers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The decadents in France at the end of the last century were obsessed with the hysterics and were unbelievably misogynistic, so I tied that up with Dali’s montage which is both shocking and beautiful. Have a look at my posts under symbolism where I go into further detail on the decadents
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just read an article in the Independent UK, that “estacy” experienced by our male ancestors is an evolutionary incentive to keep a male attached/loyal to the same female to support their offspring. Since estacy is not essential to reproduction it has to have some other function. In this study which is about female expression, via the male’s rational gaze I think it’s classic psychological projection. Of course, I say this because of the use of the words “hysteria” and “repugnant” with “beautiful” female subjects. Men have always dominated sexual discourse so it makes sense that they would describe the female subject as irrational. I should also point out the implicit assumption that a woman enjoys intercourse. Anthropological studies have concluded that the female orgasm is completely irrelevant to reproduction or the formation of lasting interpersonal or familial bonds. Again, classical psychology and classical projection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lot of good points here. You have a certain divide because the Surrealists aimed for the irrational yet had a fear of it. In the Decadent imagination women are more natural, more instinctive and therefore more irrational. This was seen by the Decadents as both a source of strength and weakness. The experiments performed on female patients by Charcot are absolutely bizarre. Dali views are of course completely mad cap. The virulent misogyny of the late 19th century is a feature of not only the Decadents but also Strindberg and Nietzsche (least we forget his whip
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. Are you put that was a belly full of laughs. Of course, I knew you were fully aware that there was some undertone of misogyny going on. I just couldn’t phrase it that way because my brain is right now still enjoying the snow pecan latte I just had at Starbucks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The misogyny of the Decadents is very hard to ignore, though that doesn’t discredit their work in my opinion, it definitely has to be factored into account. That is a very fancy coffee, Decadent in a different way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Error correction – Sorry, I meant “how you put that” was funny. I’m still trying to get Siri to behave himself. He is totally hysterical. I might have to whip him, Decadent style. Have a great Wednesday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s funny. Same to you
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dali’s photo-montage is an eyeful, so busy, yet so well balanced. Nice thought, “the repugnant can be transformed into the beautiful”. Lovely post, thank you Mr. Cake. ~ Miss Cranes
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t be the hugest fan of Dali, but this is exceptional. The saints and hysterical sinners get the point across.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is exceptional. My question still stands, when do you separate the artist from his artwork? Can you? Should you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a question for the ages, and one I debate with myself with no answer forthcoming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For me it’s a simple “no”, I’m unable to separate the two. Often I think the artist is his art, and the art is the artist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe they are one and the same. Can you like some bodies art and yet dislike the person?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I want to preface this by saying, “for me”, I believe you can dislike an individual/artist, does that diminish the quality of their art? No, especially if you are able to take it in for the pure sake of art, in doing so it may even change your initial feelings about that particular individual/artist, example my buddy André Breton. When I look at the great artists, I believe they are one in the same, they are their greatest artwork, just as we spoke of Warhol, he himself was his greatest creation. But what do I know, I’m just a lowly artist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An artist can never be lowly, and you are right, you can dislike a person and that doesn’t diminish the work one tiny bit. Lots of quite unpleasant artists who work is top rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am going to take credit for Breton…pat myself on the back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should, you definitely should, and I thank you for that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am glad I persuaded you regarding the Pope
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me too, I’m somewhat surprised to be saying that, yet I think it reinforces my belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am pleased with myself, more pats in the back. You better stop otherwise I will get arm ache.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re funny, some say, “you funny”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I try, I’m very trying
LikeLiked by 1 person
*Laughing!*
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very polite
LikeLiked by 1 person
So are you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Manners maketh the man
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have this idea in the far reaches of my memory that the shape of one’s ears was once thought to be an indicator of intelligence. I’d have to go look that up. The 19th century while known for Victorian prudishness certainly produced some wild new ideas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Dali was primarily referencing wars for the Freudian sexual symbolism, plus ears as the seat for balance, hysterics were unbalanced. A lot of similarities with today and the Victorian era, a cult of rationality and an inverse flight from reason. Rapid technological advancements and unprecedented social changes. A cruel and dogmatic upholding of laissez faire economics policy at the expense of people, most famously the British governments indifference in the Irish Potato Famine, all to adhere to the policy. The rise of extremism, both on the right and left. Thanks for the comment
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never seen this before. I do love my surrealism . Thanks for my Art literature dose ,Cake
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a wild collage which only Dali could produce.
LikeLike
There is certainly a face for ecstasy, it seems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite deadpan there Em but very funny. It definitely is. Lovely to see you back here Em I have missed you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Likewise. Come say hi when you have time. As for the ecstasy face…I think we all know how it feels, but to see a collage of it does highlight it as a very universal human moment, even as it feels very singular and personal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will, I have been very remiss about visiting my favourites sites but I will be over soon Em!
LikeLike
You have made me look at Dali in a completely different way, certainly about the body parts, was aware in high art with regard hidden symbols not an expert on Dali, will do some research.
Thank you
LikeLiked by 1 person
My pleasure. The Surrealists were keen students of Freud, though as the man himself said once, a cigar is sometimes just a cigar!
LikeLike
Interesting
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always try!
LikeLike
Great thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you
LikeLike
I just went to opening of new wing of Beaverbrook Art gallery’s, the Dali wing is wonderful, I’m not interested in the man, thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
While he was quite a character…the Surrealists coined an anagram from his name-Avida Dollars.
LikeLike
I was impressed with the pieces in the collection
LikeLiked by 1 person
He was an excellent artist…I cover a lot of surrealist artists here, most of them actually.
LikeLike
I love art, I write a travel blog but I always mix a little art, in each story. Beaverbrook bigger better was my first Gallery coverage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent. Mine is mainly art, particularly Surrealism, Modernism and Symbolism and erotic art. Also books and movies. I also have my own stories and poems here as well, with great header image of nothing else. Thanks for the follow and hope you look around. I will visit you site tomorrow, it’s very late over here.
LikeLike
Good night
LikeLiked by 1 person
Same to you Kelly
LikeLike
I’ll look forward to more of your posts . Cheers
LikeLiked by 1 person
My pleasure.
LikeLike
I am interested in The man
LikeLiked by 1 person