Leonora Carrington, ‘The Symptomatic Surreal’
The Freud Museum. Until 28th June 2026.
May, 2026
The Symptomatic Surreal houses a selection of Carrington’s sketches made during her internment in Peña Castillo sanatorium in Santander, Spain, in the latter half of 1940. I personally resonated with this exhibit. It felt like a potent gift in that I find painting allows me to both escape and confront the divisive forces of the mind. Lenora Carrington’s survey at the Freud Museum exemplifies this dual power of making art, reflecting on one of her most challenging experiences. But was the surrealism symptomatic of an illness, or the result of a renegade character as a whole?
Imprisonment of the mind feels more pertinent in a sanatorium, as hospitals become physical manifestations of this; they simultaneously mirror the restrictions a person experiences internally. Carrington’s perception then of the hospital being “like Death,” is aptly foregrounded in the exhibit, focusing on this theme in the pieces Carrington made when exploring the depths of her illness. I have always resonated with the transformative referenced in her paintings and drawings, edifying her complex relationship with death. Those familiar with a holistic sense of her practice will observe that work made during this time is darker; shadowy both in formality, such as lighting, and threatening subject matter. For example, in ‘Down Below’ there are strange hybrid beasts, such as a seated character in the foreground of the imagined landscape that appears to have a large grin, filled with menacingly sharp teeth.
The animalistic was a key source of inspiration for her throughout her career, engaging with these qualities within herself. For this reason, the horse was drawn upon at various points as a minfestation of herself, and makes an appearance across the pages here, in “shifting and unstable forms.” The exhibition text makes an effort to indicate the strength in the personal, symbolic mythology she achieved when processing her inner conflict. Yet Carrington was clearly open-minded and influenced by a range of sources, from tarot, occult, and mythology, which means that her work thrives within the museum. It feels appropriate for her work to be surrounded by the antiquities displayed in the downstairs study in that it demonstrates the extensive range of interests of those in the surrealist movement.
Although the classic, big surrealist oil landscapes are not present in this display, close learning of aspects of her troubled mind and condition, as well as a physical displacement, during the wartime years is offered. Of course, the centering of psychoanalytical thought in Carrington’s treatment in the exhibition is expected of its hosting organisation. However, I believe it is remiss of the artist’s narrative to disinclude the fact that during this time there was unfortunate use of brutal electric convulsion therapy in her treatment, and, on top of this, Carrington was unjustly given drugs that would contribute to fits. What this focus in using therapeutic art practices during psychoanalysis does reflect (one wall filled with delicate impressions allow you to engage with her rendering of internal difficulties into visual symbols) is the success of these methods in an in-patient's care. Today, occupational therapies offer in-patients a range of creative outlets to contribute to their clinical treatment, and with nascent NHS cuts endangering these services, it is valuable to champion their influence. Finding her strength in visual language, Carrington is a great ambassador of the power of an artistic outlet in providing catharsis in this insurmountable world and work against feelings of alienation.
What cannot be emphasised in this sole exploration of her wartime output at the sanatorium, is that Carrington was fragile of mind only by means of her prevailing tragedies. Carrington always had a self assured attitude but she was briefly torn from the home she found in the surrealist group and, especially, her lover, Max Ernst, which drew her into this dark abandonment. What this snapshot does not realise is the way she used art as a liberation from confinement from youth, chafing against the expectations of womanhood prescribed to her and, more generally, unable to ‘fit in’ to the status quo. She was continually alienated from her family, daughter of an expectant aristocratic father, unable to adhere to her role as a 1920s woman, and unfulfilled debutant responsibilities. I think that this notion of her pervasive character would have been worth intimating in discussion of her work created in an involuntary hospital stay; it would give light to the way her surreal language was not just a product of her depleted mental health. Carrington understood the ability to find one's place in art and escape the limitations of the time, before the encouragement to use it in treatment, utilising visual expression was used to channel her sense of abandon since she was young. Perhaps a better picture could have been established of her strength of character despite her mental health difficulties.
This would further help illuminate her decision to not return home to the comfort of Lancashire featured in an archival letter in the survey. It was a move from Carrington which reflects not the ill informed decision made in a fragile state, but a longstanding understanding of her ability to flourish outside the repressive expectations prescribed to her as an only daughter of an aristocratic family. It is a strong decision to put one’s needs first despite raising family tensions and displeasure of those so closely connected to her, but an assertion she made at several points in her life in order to achieve the life she wanted filled with art. This, I believe, is a sharp distinction not made in the wall text supplied next to this letter.
This being said, my visit to the Freud Museum felt like the perfect environment to engage with Carrington’s works. The contextual writing and archival objects provided a uniquely direct experience to connect with the artist’s experiences, understood in her work. I was deeply affected by the letter, nevertheless, in its highlighting of the challenging decisions patients must make in regards to their autonomy and independence beyond hospital. Creatives are often considered as ‘free spirits’, and this self-confidence found in Carrington’s artwork may exemplify the power of art in this way.
The setting added to the intimate, sympathetic snapshot into her life during this time as it was devoid of the usual gallery representation that seems distracted by the ‘outlandish’ or ‘whimsical’ in her imagery and character. Yes, Carrington was a person who undecidedly failed to ‘fit-in’ to the conventions of this period in history. However, this previously sensationalistic attitude to curating her work disregards the cathartic world-building of painting which was so vital to her everyday. Perhaps, I have a personal desire to protect the legacy of her character as a figure I find so relatable, which propells me to care so much that an empowering narrative is created of her life. In the museum, an upstairs room, windowless and darkly lit, evokes the realities of confinement she would have faced, setting in motion the essential role of which creativity allowed Carrington to escape. Not just liberating her from the mental difficulties surrounding the sanatorium, but from the norms and conventions of the society.
