The Camera, Mediums, Hacks and Spiritualism- What Eva C's seances tell us about spectacle and lies
This essay focuses on the photographs taken by Albert von Schrenck-Notzing of the medium Eva Carrière, widely referred to as Eva. C, which appear in his book; Phenomena of Materialisation: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Teleplastics (1923).The idea of these images being spectacular is attributed to their weird and eerie qualities and their ability to inspire fraud and deceit will be explored in this essay. Furthermore, the longevity of these otherworldly visions, which persist to this day through contemporary exhibitions and artworks, will be discussed through the perspectives of theorists such as Mark Fisher, Erich von Daniken, W.J.T Mitchel, and Susan Sonntag."This will be supplemented by the writings of Albert von Schrenck-Notzing throughout. Schrenck-Notzing (1862–1929) was a German physician, psychiatrist, and psychical researcher known for his work in the field of parapsychology. He conducted experiments and research to explore the claims of mediums and psychics, often using methods such as photography to document purported supernatural occurrences. He believed that these images could provide scientific evidence of the paranormal. The photographs taken during these séances purportedly showed ectoplasmic formations and spirit entities appearing around Eva C. (Fig 1,2,34,5,7). While Schrenck-Notzing supported the authenticity of the phenomena he observed, critics and skeptics often argued that ectoplasm was a product of fraud, created by the medium using various materials.
Note- some of these images (Fig. 4) in Phenomena of Materialisation were taken by Juliette Alexandre Bisson, companion and rumoured lover of Eva C and whose house the seances took place.
Weird Images
(Right) Fig.1. Schrenck-Notzing, A., (1911),Photograph of a Cross Section Taken inside the Cabinet,,Phenomena of Materialisation: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Teleplastics, translated by E. E. Fournier d'Albe (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, E. P. Dutton, 1923).
When explaining what is meant by” the Weird”, Mark Fisher in his 2017 text, The Weird and the Eerie, describes the idea in Lovecraftian terms “a certain atmosphere of breathless and unexplainable dread of outer, unknown forces.” (Fisher,2017,pp 15-17). Fisher described the weird as a modethat brings a sense of the uncanny into the familiar and everyday. It involves a disturbance in the fabric of reality that challenges our understanding of the world.The weird often involves the intrusion of the unknown or alien elements into the known, creating a sense of unease. It's characterized by the breaking down of the boundaries between the natural and the supernatural or between reality and the fantastic. In weird narratives, cause-and-effect relationships may be disrupted, leading to a sense of disorientation and confusion. Things happen without a clear explanation, defying logical expectations.
These ideas of unsettling reality, intrusion of the outside and violation of causality are all things that can be seen in Fig. 1. “a weird entity or object is so strange that it makes us feel that it should not exist, or at least it should not exist here.” (Fisher, 2012, p15). This photograph was taken by Albert von Schrenck-Notzing during a seance with Eva C, 1911. The image shows the medium on a chair, surrounded by dark, draped fabric, blurred in motion as it seems that she is thrashing from her seat, compelled by the spirit who has materialized over her right shoulder. To the modern eye this spirit presents itself as a sketch of a woman’s side profile on a piece of crumpled paper, adorned with tangled fabric, given an ectoplasmic quality by its loose weave. The weird elements in these photos are summed up to the staged and manipulated aspects of the seance, such as the medium grimacing with the crumpled paper bearing a spectral face. The blur in the background of the photograph and the robed woman at the focus makes this a somewhat pictorial spectacle, popular in photographic movements at the time, adding to the uncanny and otherworldly aura of the image. The weirdness arises from the deliberate attempt to deceive the audience into perceiving something supernatural. The intrusion of fabricated elements into the supposedly spiritual or paranormal setting disrupts the expected boundaries between reality and the uncanny, creating an unsettling experience for those witnessing or later analyzing the photographs.
Eerie Images
(Right) Fig.2.on Schrenck-Notzing, A., (1912-13),Photograph of a Cross Section Taken inside the Cabinet,,Phenomena of Materialisation: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Teleplastics, translated by E. E. Fournier d'Albe (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, E. P. Dutton, 1923).
The eerie is simply summed up by Fisher as “The sensation of the eerie occurs either when there is something present where there should be nothing, or if there is nothing present when there should be something.” (Fisher, 2017, p61). The eerie, is more about the unsettling atmosphere or mood rather than specific events. It is a sense of discomfort or unease that arises from ambiguous or indeterminate situations. It often involves a feeling that something is not quite right, but it's challenging to pinpoint exactly what. It might be the presence of absence or the absence of presence, creating a sense of haunting. Eerie experiences are also often associated with liminal spaces—thresholds or transitional zones that are neither here nor there. These spaces evoke a sense of anticipation or tension. All of this is exemplified by the image in Fig.2. On the right side of the image there is a lozenge/ vulva shaped smudge of white, an index of a bright flash being present at this moment of the seance. It hovers a head taller than the medium, Eva C, and tapers off at the bottom. The medium appears on the left of the image, the vague evidence of her countenance is blurry and she appears ghostlike herself. The image seems to be covered in a fine mist, at first glance one would not even recognise a face in it, just a marbling of drops of developing fluid and ink. The eerie aspects of the seance photos could be linked to the atmospheric and indeterminate qualities present in the images. Brushes and flashes of light contribute to a foggy atmosphere, making it challenging for the audience to discern concrete details (Fig. 2). The eerie mood arises from the ambiguity and the sense of something not quite right, as if there are spectral presences just beyond the reach of clear perception. The foggy, otherworldly setting enhances the overall feeling of unease, “ there is no doubt that the sensation o f the eerie clings to certain kinds o f physical spaces and landscapes.” (Fisher, 1017, p61).
Fisher's idea that the eerie can only be fully experienced through the circulation of images, as opposed to the live event, is particularly relevant in the case of seance photos. When attending a seance in person, the lighting conditions and the immediate sensory experience might diminish the eerie quality of the scene. However, through the circulation of carefully composed and manipulated photographs, the eerie atmosphere is heightened. The stillness of a photograph allows for prolonged contemplation and scrutiny, enabling the audience to pick up on subtleties that might be lost in the live, transient experience. The eerie is not just in the visual elements of the photos but emerges from the cultural discourse surrounding them. The audience becomes an active participant in constructing the eerie atmosphere through their interpretations, emphasizing the importance of the images as cultural artifacts.
In examining the seance photos of Eva C. by Albert von Schrenck-Notzing through the lens of Mark Fisher's concepts of the weird and the eerie, we find a nuanced interplay of deliberate manipulation and atmospheric ambiguity. These seance photos become not only visual artifacts but also conduits for collective inference and meaning-making, emphasizing the significance of analyzing these images over the live, transient events they capture.While the weird involves the intrusion of the unknown into the known, with a focus on strange occurrences and disruptions of reality, the eerie is more about the atmosphere and the feeling of discomfort arising from the ambiguous or uncanny aspects of a situation. Both concepts highlight the ways in which art and culture can evoke profound emotional and cognitive responses by challenging our perceptions of reality.
Why Are Truth and Fraud Compelling When Attached to Images?
These feelings of truth and fraud are compelling for several reasons when intertwined with spectacular images, all of which are rooted in psychological, social, and cultural dynamics. The interplay between truth and fraud taps into inherent human skepticism, prompting individuals to assess the credibility of presented information or experiences.The contrast between truth and fraud can also create cognitive dissonance – a psychological discomfort arising from holding conflicting beliefs or attitudes. People are often motivated to resolve this dissonance by seeking clarification and understanding the authenticity of a situation or claim.The uncertainty and tension generated by this questioning the veracity of spirit images add a layer of suspense and captivation to narratives, making them more engaging. Of course, from the standpoint of a contemporary viewer, coming from a more ‘rational’ standpoint and of one with more visual literacy towards photographs, these visions are clearly false. Although they are just as fascinating as they were at the time of their conception, we now view them as obvious evidence of fraud. To provide a contrasting view, the following are two examples of these images being argued as absolute truth for the supernatural.
(Above)Fig.4.Alexandre-Bisson,J, (1913), Medium 'Eva C.' Manifesting an Apparition,Phenomena of Materialisation: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Teleplastics, translated by E. E. Fournier d'Albe (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, E. P. Dutton, 1923).
The subsequent extracts are from Schrenk-Notzing’s opinions on why these photographs prove supernatural activity. “If, in consideration of the trustworthiness of both photographers, we may dismiss the possibility of fraud” (Schrenck-Notzing, 1923, p33) Here in the first half of the book he is admitting that these spectacles could be viewed as too fantastical to be true, and that with an untrustworthy photographer this may be true. As it is him himself who is the primary photographer for his investigations he says he can trust that nothing which shows up on his gelatine prints can be false, at least by his own doing.
“Financial motives are also put out of court by the favourable and well-regulated circumstances of the Bisson family. The lady's own expenses for these experiments (housing, clothing, and feeding of the medium for three and a half years, rent and furniture of the flat taken for the purpose of the experiments” (Schrenck-Notzing, 1923, p35) In this extract Schrenk-Notzing rules out the idea that either Juliette Alexandre Bisson or Eva C would be holding fraudulent seances for monetary benefits as both women were living comfortably off of Bisson’s wealth and could fund the gatherings themselves, not needing to make any profits. “Hysteria and a love of sensation do not play any part, since Mme. Bisson's bodily and mental equilibrium are intact.” (Schrenck-Notzing, 1923, p35) Again, reasons why the host, J.A. Bisson, could not possibly be lying or wanting to inscite fraud as she seemed mentally intact.
In the latter third of the book there is a chapter, Artistic and Technical Opinions, where Schrenk-Notzing gives an outside opinion from Professor Albert von Keller (a painter whose work often dealt with the occult), as to why the appearances of the ectoplasm and spirits look like fabric (Fig. 4) and crumpled paper ( Schrenck-Notzing,1923, pp 271-274). Keller’s opinion was that these materialisations couldn't possibly be false as the paper was soft and fluctuating (Fig.1) and that this is “never a paperlike character” (Schrenck-Notzing,1923, p272). Keller also addresses why the ectoplasm in the photographs (Fig. 4) look remarkably like draped fabric. He compares the lines in the ectoplasm to seaweed and lava, saying “such lines do not occur in artificial or artistic products” ( Schrenck-Notzing,1923, p273). The textile and papery appearance of the otherworldly forms in the photographs is further excused by the idea that because they are so otherworldly, the human mind cannot interpret their true form and must use examples of visions from our own world to be able to see and interpret what is before us, the true nature of what is happening in these images is just too spectacular.
The idea of fraud can also be found in how these images are remediated to act as proof for other, fraudulent ideas. They have the power to convince through their spectacle. Erich von Däniken is a Swiss author known for his controversial theories on extraterrestrial influence in ancient human history. In his book Miracles of the Gods (1974) , he argues that the “Gods” are trying to extraterrestrially intervene in human life using various historical phenomena. He claims that an example of this is through the materialisations that occur during the spiritualist seances. During this argument he uses a photograph that was taken by Schrenk-Notzing of the Polish medium, Stanislava P, and claims that this is Eva C (Fig. 3). Daniken references Phenomena of Materialisation: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Teleplastics as his source for these claims which means that he either skimmed the book for which spectacle aesthetically fit his message the best and then attached the name Eva C as she was the more well known medium. Interestingly the remediation of these spectacles goes further into the realm of fraud than just in Daniken’s book. When one googles the name Eva C, as on 2023, this image, Fig. 3, appears even though it is a completely different woman in the image, as documented by the photographer himself ( Schrenck-Notzing,1923, pp 252-253). Whether this is a direct knock on effect of Erich von Daniken’s falsification or not, it is evidence how the aesthetic power of these phantasmic spectacles is more powerful than the practical history of the who, when, where and what.
Contemporary Reactions
(Left)Fig.5.Von Schrenck-Notzing, A., (1912), Medium 'Eva C.' Manifesting an Apparition,Phenomena of Materialisation: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Teleplastics, translated by E. E. Fournier d'Albe (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, E. P. Dutton, 1923).
The exhibition "The Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult," held at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from September 27 to December 31, 2005, explores the historical relationship between photography and spiritualism during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The collection features 120 photographs from public and private archives in Europe and North America, with a focus on the period from the 1860s to World War II when paranormal phenomena were actively debated. The exhibition is primarily concerned with commercial interests the captured manifestations viewable by the naked eye and finally with capturing thoughts, feelings, and dreams expressed by mediums, the index of which existing directly on photographic plates.The exhibition's emphasis on historical perspective and lack of authoritative commentary on the photographs suggest a focus on presenting the material without imposing contemporary interpretations. The exhibition includes a photograph taken during one of Eva. C’s seances, by Albert von Schrenck-Notzing as seen in Fig.5. In the context of the exhibition, this photograph was presented as part of the second section, which explores images documenting séances and medium activities. This exhibition displays these images as historical artifacts, providing us with a simulation of the cultural reaction that these photographs would have inspired and informing us of the aesthetic experience of the beholders of this spectacle.
" Faking It: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop," held at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from October 11, 2012, to January 27, 2013, delves into the extensive history of manipulated photography. This international loan exhibition traces the evolution of photographic manipulation from the 1840s to the early 1990s, preceding the dominance of digital technology. These images presented scenarios challenging the viewer's perception, the perfect example of this is spirit photography (Fig.6).
The exhibition emphasizes the contemporary awareness of the malleability of photographic images due to digital technology. Its exploration of manipulated images aligns with historical practices associated with séance photography. The pursuit of seamless realism in these altered photographs reflects the same intention found in spirit photographs, aiming to convince viewers of the reality of supernatural occurrences. It's important to note that the example of spirit photography in this exhibition involves the medium Marguerite Buttinger and not Eva C. Nevertheless, the concepts and ideas discussed in the exhibition are equally applicable to both examples. . Despite the specific example being Marguerite Buttinger, the overarching message remains consistent in exploring the historical manipulation of images and its impact on the perception of visual truth.
Comments
Post a Comment