“Get Yourself a Fire Body”
Approaching Religion December 2, 2025 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.30664/ar.162846 via OpenAlex
Summary
Clairvoyance, mediumship, and gender intersected in early-twentieth-century art, as shown by the Finnish artist and occultist Meri Genetz (1885–1943). Although esotericism shaped modern art, visionary and mediumistic practices are often marginalized in mainstream art history. Analysis of Genetz's archival material and self-portraits from the 1920s–1930s reveals that conceptual ambiguities, discursive demarcations, and gender bias contributed to this marginalization. Her case demonstrates that deep engagement with occultism does not always produce easily identifiable artistic traces; archival research and familiarity with esoteric discourses are essential for identifying such phenomena. The study challenges male-oriented narratives of modern art and calls for reassessing mediumistic and visionary art as vital to twentieth-century art.
Study at a glance
| Design | historical analysis |
|---|---|
| Key finding | Conceptual ambiguities, discursive demarcations, and gender bias marginalized mediumistic and visionary art, and profound occult engagement may not manifest identifiably in artworks without archival and esoteric discourse analysis. |
Abstract
This article explores the intersections of clairvoyance, mediumship and gender in early-twentieth-century art through the case of the Finnish artist and occultist Meri Genetz (1885–1943). While esotericism has played a pivotal role in modern art, visionary and mediumistic practices are still often seen as marginal phenomena within mainstream art history. This article traces Meri Genetz’s spiritual journey from the 1920s to the 1930s by analysing her archival material and art—-especially self-portraits. In doing so, it underscores various factors that have contributed to the marginalisation of mediumistic and visionary art. The article posits that conceptual ambiguities, discursive demarcations and gender bias have all contributed to this marginalisation. More-over, the significance of bodily and artistic practices is emphasised. Genetz’s case demonstrates that even a profound engagement with occultism does not necessarily manifest in an easily identifiable way in the artworks. Consequently, archival research and familiarity with prevailing esoteric discourses (i.e. occulture) are instrumental in identifying mediumistic and visionary phenomena. By situating Genetz within her own historical context and esoteric discourses, the study challenges the male-orientated narratives of modern art and highlights the need to reassess mediumistic and visionary phenomena as a vital part of twentieth-century art.