Deus ex migraine

By Trevor Richard Pearce

This article [Helen Rumbelow, "Picasso's Artistic Secret? He had a migraine, MD says", The Vancouver Sun, circa September 2000] makes it difficult to begin. It is almost too perfect as an example. Nevertheless, I will attempt a theoretical examination of it, not concentrating on a single perspective, but milling about through the theory that has been presented. I suppose it makes sense to start with origin – isn't that what we do, after all?

Science. Origin. These ideas are closely linked. Scientists ask "Why?", and postulate a series of linear events which lead to a given product. Even if multiple chemical reactions occur simultaneously, they are often arbitrarily ordered to express an overall reaction based on the products. Here, science, in its pervasive way, has thrust itself into the realm of art. A neurologist, Michel Ferrari, has developed the theory that Picasso's vertical fracturing of faces in his painting has its roots in the migraines from which he (supposedly) suffered. The works of art cannot be appreciated without a discovery of where they came from.

It has been previously established that these works of art are by Picasso, but his style must have originated from something. Since God is no longer the answer, in this scientific paradigm, we have to turn to something else – migraine. The irony is that the art historians are a tad peeved, not because of the absurdity of the lust for linearity and beginnings, but because their own theory of origin has been called into question! Surely it is evident that the vertical splitting is a natural synthesis of analytic cubism and African art? And Ferrari has done even more to undermine classical ideas of the study of art, for the Migraine Picasso Quiz (a lovely little title) calls into question the fact that Picasso should even be used as a classifier. So origin has been substituted for origin, and I guess we can't really do without it. After all, origin produces value, especially in art.

Perhaps the next area of attack should be the artist as genius figure. The study of art is really all about the individual. A new Piano Concerto. Proven to be Haydn? Well let's dredge it up for this concert series, by all means! How can the mere discovery of origin bestow value upon a work? We have created Haydn, the composer. We have created Picasso, the artist. So much time is spent authenticating these days…poring over musical scores and texts to truly produce what the "author" would have wanted. How can we know this? Moreover, why do we need to know this?

The real problem here, as it turns out, is that I'm going to end up on a common theme – Arbor and Equis. Sure, it's cliché, but where else can I go? It's the obvious destination, and I'm sorry if it seems like regurgitation (the metaphorical act as opposed to the product).

The link between signifier and signified is arbitrary. We find this bothersome. If there is no constant, everything must be going to hell in a handbasket – the contemporary cry for help. The only way to answer it is a God figure. A figure of origin. But it is not necessary these days to elevate a deity. Let us take the idea that Picasso is the originator for granted, and look back further. Why did he paint this way? From what is this vertical splitting derived? That's the attitude – it must have come from something. Developed in a happy, linear way. Because the mere attribution of genius to the artist is imperfect in terms of the scientific application of the search for origin, Ferrari has looked for the cause of the genius. After all, the world is completely determined by cause-effect relations. Or so they say. Did his genius come from God? Apparently not. He had a headache.

Will migraine sufferers be hailed as the next Picassos? It isn't likely, for they are in a different time. But certainly the individualised genius of Picasso has been undermined by Ferrari's little quiz. Even art historians can't distinguish between the artist's work and the work of any old migraine patient. For shame! The title of the article contributes: Picasso's artistic secret? Sssh…we're going to find out the real reason behind his crazy paintings! What? Origin? Quick, everybody, gather 'round! And the skilful inclusion of MD also adds – a doctor? What he says must be important...

So science has become the ultimate producer of origin. After all, origin and linearity are inherent in the very nature of science. The fossil record, sedimentation, chemical reaction – these all seem to be ordered and neatly arrayed ideas. That's science. People generally forget about those areas that confound scientists – where's the Theory of Everything? Now that would be origin. And all-encompassing origin at that! There are fundamental limitations: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle – the impossibility of the simultaneous calculation of the momentum and position of an electron. Does the public know, or care, or understand? No. They do not want to hear about why we cannot expose origin, why it is truly impossible.

Perhaps impossible, but useless? It does seem odd to continue to batter away, looking for origin, when the idea is founded upon something which is now "dead", or at least supposedly so, in the world of secular learning. I shall not speak his name. The migraine has become this transcendental signified. Art, social and cultural forces, foreign influence? That seems complicated. Why don't we just chalk it up to God…er…maybe just a headache. With a swift move, Ferrari has, ironically, called into question the accepted and publicly (relatively) inaccessible theories of origin to substitute his own, scientifically founded, idea. Picasso…genius? No. Migraine prophet? Perhaps. Arbitrary? It doesn't look like it.

"Of course, there is no proof for this idea…" states Ferrari.

Since when have we needed any? And since when has it been possible? An imposed constant is the only truth.

(Trevor Richard Pearce, Deus ex Migraine [December 11, 2000], August 10, 2004; additions in square brackets by Klaus Podoll)

top