|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3142
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | 
|
Don't have much information on this, but I was emailed the below image from an art historian/dealer who says its a painting attributed to Walter Sickert which has recently ended up in his hands.
I'm not an expert in Sickert paintings so I don't know if this is a well-known piece or one "new" to Ripperology, but I don't believe I've seen this one before. It is certainly of interest to us if it is indeed a Sickert, as the combination of the bloody female corpse on the bed and the top-hatted man in black seems to be inspired at least to some extent by the Ripper murders.
I'm endeavouring to dig up more information on the painting and its provenance at the moment and will post more if anything interesting comes my way:
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Rudlophe Giordani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 8:02 pm: |
|
I'd thoroughly check the authenticity. I've seen quite a lot of Sickert, though I wouldn't style myself an expert, and this seems totally different in many aspects (not the sujet, mind you).
Regards
R. Giordani |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 190
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:35 am: |
|
Nice find Stephen, but it dont look like a Sickert to me. He was Britons best post impressionist artist. This style of art was made to be looked at from a distance. If you look at it close it seems stark, like blobs of paint, Sickert that is. But viewed from a distance it looks good.
My prob with this image is that the guy with the top hat doesnt have enough detail, and the feet of the person on the bed is way to crude to be a Sickert.
But I could be wrong. Its never happened before...but I was almost late once.
Thanks for the site Stephen, Brad
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:37 am: |
|
Stephen
Interesting find indeed. From the reading I have done one of the acknowledged experts on Sickert is Dr. Anna Greutzner Robins who lectures at Reading University in the UK. Her contact details are given on the public pages of the Reading Univeristy site as follows:
Name:
Dr Anna Gruetzner Robins
Job Title: Reader, Lecturer Areas of Expertise: Sickert, gender and landscape, British modernism, art exhibitions Department: History of Art; School of Humanities
Email: a.e.gruetzner-robins@reading.ac.uk
Telephone Number: 0118 378 7881
Website:
She is specifically listed in an area of the website called Media directory of expertise which is described as containing "Members of academic staff who are willing to talk to the media about their areas of research"
It might be worth contacting her.
Hope this helps
All the best
Chris
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 176
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:51 am: |
|
Could be a Sickert , definitely inspired by the Kelly murder I'd say. Washstand , kettle on the fire (?) , red handkerchief , Mr Astrakan - many of the elements seem to be there. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 177
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:04 am: |
|
There are some interesting points about this picture actually.
* The clock and the lamp are too elaborate for the poorly furnished room , as is the mirror , so I suspect they are artistic license.
The clock shows a time of 7 o'clock - is that the time Kelly was killed ? Is that why its been put in the picture ?
The lamp is to illuminate the room , so we see whats happening.
The mirror is included to show the corpse on the bed , yet the face is covered. Is this to show that the corpse wasn't Kelly ?
* The Ripper is holding something , it looks like a hatbox or a cake or a drum. Is this the reason Kelly was killed , she had something that had to be retrieved ?
* On the far right-hand side , theres definitely a brown coat standing up , the curtain or some material flows beneath it.
I think it could be by Sickert , but it doesn't necessarily mean he ever went in Kelly's room or that he was the Ripper even. The details in the painting could easily have been culled from the papers.
I think this is an important find , who knows what else could be out there ? |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 90
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
It certainly looks inspired by Kelly but by someone who hadn't seen the real room.
Interesting that the sheet is over the face.
Is that a book open on the floor by the man's left foot?
And what's that in his pocket?
Mags
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 751
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:12 pm: |
|
LOL...even Mr. Diddles seems to be making an appearance.
The Vitriolic Victimizer
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 320
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Very interesting find indeed Spry. Even if it isn't one of Sickert's works (I have no idea if it is, not a follower of his work).
I'd like to know who and where it came from though..
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end."
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3083
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:08 pm: |
|
What's happening at the top of the picture? The wall seems not to be a wall, but a partition. If the painter meant that to be the partition, then he got its position wrong.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 299
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Robert,
It looks to me that the top of the photo is above the top of the painting. The edge there is where the piece ends and the wall it is up against begins, so not a partition.
Regarding the painting itself, from looking at it with the angles of the photo corrected to see it head on, whoever did it has a pretty poor grasp of how perspective works. The mirror, bed, table etc. are all wrong. And either the body is 8 feet tall or the Ripper was a midget.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Hi Stephen,Dont think its by Sickert this!
Sickert used colour quite differently.He used his reds and oranges and yellows and ochres to model and illuminate-and give dimension.There"s none of the rapid brushwork either that characterises his work.The figures are very crudely drawn and whereas Sickert deliberately gave his subjects a blurred and rough appearance quite often he could actually draw beautifully when he wanted to[viz "nude stretching" 1905 or Mrs Barrett[Tate Gallery -I read somewhere that this was his attempt to portray Kate Eddowes].
I shall be really surprised if any other art hisorian attributes this to Sickert!
Natalie |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 182
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Well I know we are cynical here , but lets not assume it is a forgery just yet at least !
We need to find out something of the provenance of the picture before making a final judgement , and see if we can find out when it was painted. If it isn't by Sickert , who IS it by ?
That this is the second Ripper artefact to turn up in a month ( the other being the watchstand ) is quite worrying , it could be that there is a workshop producing items like this out there to prey on gullible Ripperologists or to try and make a fortune with the 2004 equivalent of the Diary or whatever. However , the watchstand does apparently have a good provenance and a traceable history , so it may be that items from a private collection of Ripper memorabila are emerging on to the market - in which case , this picture could be an exciting find ! |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 301
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 5:21 pm: |
|
For the record, some of Sickert's paintings have some odd geometry too. The perspective problems to my mind aren't conclusive in this case. Just seems kind of sloppy.
Regarding the possibility that people are creating more fake Ripper artifacts, let me just announce now that I've got Jack the Ripper's skull for sale... and I know it's legit, because he personally autographed it. I know the signature is authentic because it matches the one in the Dear Boss letter. How cool is that? I'd eBay it but they don't allow sale of human body parts. Act now, I've only got three available for sale...
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 321
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 5:28 pm: |
|
I'll take 6 Dan.. I know.. I know.. you'll have to go back in your time machine/parallel universe device to get them.. but hey.. I'm willing to pay a premium!!
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end."
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 661
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Of course it is tricky to tell unless you know the date of the painting, because like all artists Sickert went through phases during which his work had quite different aspects, but I'm going along with Natalie on this one, the colour looks all wrong for a Sickert, and also I have to say this doesn't look like a work by an artist as confident in their own ability as Sickert was, it looks a little too "painting-by-numbers"-ish to me. If I saw this in a gallery I would probably pass by without a second thought, something one could never say of Sickert at his best.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3143
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Hey good comments everyone - whether or not its a true Sickert, I've no idea and I'm certainly not qualified to make a decision on that.
I've asked for more information from the art dealer and we'll see what comes of it, if anything.
I remember Chris Scott unearthed a short article in the American press which said Whistler was planning to paint a scene or scenes based on the Whitechapel murders. I suppose its possible this painting could be related to that, though I agree it doesn't seem to show the "master hand" of a Sickert or a Whistler. Maybe one of their students? Who knows.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 102
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:49 pm: |
|
To all,
I think Stephen hit the nail on the head. One of Sickert's students. I think I know exactly who that would be.
STAN RUSSO |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Oh Stan,
come on now you are taunting us!!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 6:14 am: |
|
I think it's mighty suspicious if that's meant to be a hat box. I posted something not too long ago about the ripper possibly giving bonnets to his victims - bonnets that had belonged to an unfaithful wife or domineering mother.
I also posted, more in fun than seriously, that he may have dropped an initialled hankie at the scene (not the red one, protruding from his pocket in the above painting, which I believe Hutch may have given him to offer Kelly to reassure her he was a 'safe' client, vetted by Hutch).
Look at that hankie, or piece of cloth, on the floor - it has the same upside-down F, in red, on the right-hand side, as appears to be gashed in Kelly's left forearm in the official photo.
Hmmmmm - what's going on here? 
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 8:52 am: |
|
Hi, Caz
Since we are discussing this painting on a Ripper site and we are all Ripper minded, we are looking for Ripper references in this painting. However, the artist's intentions might be quite different and he might actually be alluding to another crime, or imagined crime, than the Ripper series. Seeing the woman on the bed, we tend to think of Mary Jane Kelly, and yet the room is quite unlike 13 Miller's Court, isn't it, given its expensive looking clock, and the painting which looks like an interpretation of Landseer's stags than "The Fisherman's Widow."
In the Ripper context, Caz, you rightly bring up the apparent hatbox and the fact that the Ripper possibly gave Mary Ann Nichols her "jolly new bonnet." I also think serious consideration should be given to the possibility that the Ripper was a giftgiver, and that this could have been one way he lulled his victims into compliance to enable his murderous intentions.
However, look at the way the victim's upper body is covered by a sheet. Could it be that the hatbox contains her head? The blood by the man's left foot might imply the hatbox contains the head or some other body part. Think of Emlyn Williams's "Night Must Fall" in which the killer, Danny, puts his victim's head in a hatbox. As for whether the handkerchief or paper on the floor by the man's left foot shows an upside-down "F" you have a better imagination than I do, Caz! 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 4:09 am: |
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was by misstake sent to the thread "Walter Sickert by Denys Sutton", but here it is, in itīs right place;
I donīt think itīs a Sickert (poor quality)and I have never seen it before, but Iīm sure that itīs made by someone who knew Sickert, or at least his paintings (the carpet, the iron bed, the mantelpiece, the mirror, the dead woman, the two-faced man, the red scarf, etc, etc) - it may be a joke, made by a friend or student of Sickert.
But one canīt be a 100% sure, Sickert was a joker and prankster too...
Either way, fake or not, the painting may refer to the "lost" Jack the Ripper painting by Sickert made in 1906, talked about in Denys Suttons book; Sickert told Keith Baynes that he painted Jack in 1906. Personally, I suspect that Sickert at that time talked about the (crayon)painting "Mrs Barett" (1906), shown here:
Note the scene in the mirror and the woman in the bed, it looks a bit like the picture of Mary Kelly.
Regards, Tommy Nilsson
PS The painting of "Jack" in 1906 is discussed in the thread: "Walter Sickert" by Denys Sutton
I also would like to add that Sickert painted some very strange images around the time of his stroke (in the 1920īs), such as "Lazarus breaks his fast" and "Abrahams servant" and later in the 1930īs "Patrol" with the little figure of a man running behind the (dead) policewoman. That figure is even stranger then Jack in this "new" painting. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 4:27 am: |
|
Blimey Chris, you've just got me thinking - perhaps Jack brought a bonnet in a hatbox for each prospective victim, hoping to take a head back home in it afterwards. Never quite managing a decapitation in the time he had, or with the weapon(s) he brought with him, maybe the urge to do this subsided by the time he found himself alone with Mary.
The F on the hankie was indeed a product of my imagination having fun with me.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 187
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 6:52 am: |
|
Nice one Tommy ! The Mrs Barrett crayon reflection does seem to resemble the reflection in the mirror in the murder painting.
Maybe we are looking at a lost Sickert here ? Maybe Walter was the first Ripperologist , if he wasn't involved in the murders themselves somehow ?
|
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 4:50 am: |
|
Hi Simon!
Sickerts paintings with references to violence, murder of women and Jack the Ripper are numberless.
Although, I donīt think the new painting is a Sickert. He liked to sign his work, with different names, yes, but he signed them.
He was "The Juvenile Lead", ahead of his time. He liked to use hidden messages and images (like Dali), mostly not to obvious.
For an example, take a look at The Juvenile Lead, one of Sickerts selfportraits. Look to the left of his right ear. Who are these people?
http://www.artunframed.com/images/sickert/juvenile.jpg
Here, The Juvenile Lead is dated 1908. If my memory serves me right; Wendy Baron (the no 1 expert) dated this painting to the 1890īs. If you mask the right side of the face (about 1/3) you will see another Sickert, the one with the white animal eye (on his right side) and on the left side death? You tell me. But subtle, yes.
Jack the Ripper wrote that he was a master of the art, Walter Sickert was a master of art.
But there is nothing subtle in the new Sickert painting, except maybe the two-faced Jack.
But as I mentioned, Sickert could have painted it in his late days, as a joke.
Regards, Tommy
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 324
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Hi Tommy,
"Sickerts paintings with references to violence, murder of women and Jack the Ripper are numberless."
Numberless? I guess you would have us believe that Sickert painted an infinite number of pieces then?
Sickert actually has a very small number of works that reference violence, and the references to the murder of women or Jack the Ripper consist of only a small number that have titles suggestive of a connection but nothing in the paintings themselves to show a link.
Basically, you are presenting a mole hill as if it were a mountain and expect us to just accept what you say.
"Look to the left of his right ear. Who are these people?"
Have you ever heard of the Rorschach inkblot test? Congratulations, you failed it.
"Jack the Ripper wrote that he was a master of the art, Walter Sickert was a master of art."
I think you are confused. Jack the Ripper hasn't been shown to have written anything we know of, though some claim he wrote the "Juwes" graffito. Sounds like you are referring to yet another Ripper hoax letter. There were thousands of those written, none with any known connection to the actual murders. Picking and choosing snippits of text from those letters to try to connect them to a suspect is the easiest game in the world. It means nothing, other than that you picked a suspect and use any ridiculous argument you can come up with to try to convince yourself and us that he was a killer.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 8:25 am: |
|
Hello Dan!
When it comes to Sickerts art, you are wrong. Thatīs my opinion but not yours. We can agree on that.
I have listed a lot of paintings by Sickert refering to violence, mutiliation and murder of women and to Jack the Ripper, on several occasions and different threads, here in the casebook.
I have not counted them all, yet, but I guess that it is at least 50 paintings or more.
If you wish, I can give you a list.
I can respect if you argue that Sickert was not Jack the Ripper, but when you say that there is no connection in his art to murder or to Jack - you are wrong.
It is a well known fact in the art world that crime & murder was an important subject matter for Sickert.
You can read books by Dr Anna Gruetzner Robins, (leading expert on Sickerts sketches and etchings) or Lisa Tickners essay, titled "Walter Sickert: The Camden Town murder and tabloid crime".
The leading expert on Sickerts paintings, Wendy Baron, also discussed the violence in many paintings by Sickert and found some of them very disturbing.
Lisa Tickner writes in her essay that she and Dr Robins discussed Sickerts obsession with Jack the Ripper and the implications of that in his art and the connection to the Camden Town murder (and the paintings).
I am not at home when I write this, so I canīt do it now, but Iīd like to give the information later about the books, so you and everybody else can read them and see more sketches by Sickert, and decide if itīs violence.
It is obvious that you and I donīt see the same things in Sickerts art.
We donīt agree about the letters either. Iīm convinced that Sickert wrote some of them, you can find sketches in the letters, made by an artist - in Sickerts style.
One example is the Ripper letter with the text "This is my photo of Jack the Ripper" and a sketch. The sketch showes a boxer(?) with shaved head and a scarf (Sickert liked boxing). The sketch is made like an etching. Sickert argued that drawings should be made in the technic of etchings.
Compare this letter signed "Jack the Ripper" to the photo of Sickert with shaved head and scarf (in Cornwells book) and then with the painting "Selfportrait with La Giuseppina". Any similarety?
"La Giuseppina" was the model that according to Cornwell looked a lot like Cathrine Eddowes.
Regards, Tommy
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2153
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Hello Tommy,
I think you are confused indeed.
We've gone over this before. It is quite possible that Sickert wrote some of the letters.
But does that prove or even imply that he was Jack the Ripper?
No.
Some facts indicate that he was an eccentric and had morbid interests. So what?
The letters can't be connected with certainty to Jack the Ripper, and therefore they are useless as a reference. Especially seen in the light of the vast number of false communications drowning the police in practically every spectacular murder case.
Nor do the paintings themselves tell us anything. They may be interesting from an art analysis point of view, but they can hardly be considered as evidence in a criminal case. Sickert's interest in the Ripper murders are not incriminating -- deep down inside you would realize this, if you weren't so set on your opinion that Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
Cornwell did the same mistakes, and we should learn from them.
"Sickerts paintings with references to violence, murder of women and Jack the Ripper are numberless."
And how do this suggest that he was responsible for the Ripper murders? Paintings displaying such themes are hardly unique occurrences in art history and doesen't the slightest suggest that the painter is a raving murderer.
"Jack the Ripper wrote that he was a master of the art, Walter Sickert was a master of art."
And once again, this shows... what?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 331
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 8:52 am: |
|
Thanks, Glenn, for good comments and reminding me I hadn't responded.
Regarding the alleged "violence" in Sickert's paintings: Where?
I'm not an expert or anything, but I've looked through the various paintings and drawings mentioned by people trying to label his as the Ripper and what the art exhibitions show. I'm not seeing any preoccupation with violence.
He's got the one drawing with a guy attacking his father, and then a bunch of naked women, and then lots of other stuff. One piece does not make his entire life's work "violent." If art critics are claiming that there's violence as a general theme, I can only think they are saying so based upon the titles of some of the works (Camden Town murders) and not the actual work.
If you're the kind of person (and apparently Patricia Cornwell is) who sees a naked female body in art and starts thinking that it represents violence against women, that says a lot more about your mental state and your preconceived ideas than it does about the artist.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2155
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
The problematic thing with using art in the way Tommy and Mrs Cornwell are trying to do, is that art -- as I think most of us realise -- very much lie in the eye of the beholder.
Art interpretation can to some extent derive from verified facts from what we know about the artists or the things they depict, but generally art interpretation is a very personal and subjective thing.
This, of course, minimizes its value as evidence in, for example, a criminal case. And naturally that is one of the reasons why such an approach can't be taken seriously by anyone working with or studying crimes.
Depending on the style and the level of realism in the art, it can be difficult to state with certainty what's symbolising "violence" or not.
One may see a butchered Mary Kelly or a murderer with a knife in a mirror in the background, while others may interpret it as a furniture or a shadow from objects in the motif.
Art interpretation is very much based on our personal preferences; it is my belief -- as an educated art historian -- that we can see Eddowes being ripped up in a painting if we want to see it, even though the artist meant to imply something completely different. If one wants to see signs pointing at the Ripper murders in a painting, there is a good chance you'll see them, regardless if they're there or not.
Therefore I think your reference to the Rorschack ink test was splendid, because that is really what this is all about.
Believe me, Dan, you are certainly not alone in not finding any of those features in the paintings.
Sickert's art is in itself -- thanks to its semi-realistic, semi-symbolic style -- very open to different interpretations, so unless we have very clear verified statements from the artist himself saying that this or that painting is referring to violence or that particular scene, it is not recommendable to use his art as arguments in a Ripper debate in the way Tommy or Cornwell tries to do.
I have studied several of the paintings referred to by Cornwell and I must confess I am having problems with seeing things in them that are relevant for the Ripper case.
And, once again, even if those features really were there to begin with, they do not in any way prove that the artist committed the crimes in question. Last time I checked, having morbid fantasies are hardly automatically connected with actual criminal acts. On the contrary, I would say that the art itself function as safety vault, where the artist can live out his fantasies or spells of insanity on the canvas, rather than expressing them in reality.
"If you're the kind of person (and apparently Patricia Cornwell is) who sees a naked female body in art and starts thinking that it represents violence against women, that says a lot more about your mental state and your preconceived ideas than it does about the artist."
Excellent and very well put. Couldn't agree more.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Tommy Nilsson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 5:47 am: |
|
Stephen P. Ryder
In my post of 29/9 I said that I did not believe "the new" painting to be a Sickert, but maybe a joke with Sickert, in some way.
I am not longer so sure. In the 1930īs Sickert painted what he called "Echoes" after famous work by other, older artists.
One of these, an oil painting from 1932; "Womans Sphere" (echo after John Gilbert),is remarkable, in many ways. Enlarge it and take a good look!
What is the subject matter here?
http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/search/Object.asp?object_key=24371
The initals W,S in the title is also Walter Sickerts initials.
The painting can be seen in connection with another painting, the selfportrait "Lazarus Breaks His Fast" (1929), where you can find a woman on Sickerts spoon, on the way in to his mouth.
In "Womans Sphere" the man seems to eat a human heart. The woman is in company of a human skull. What is the image in her skirt and on the outside of the newspapper? In the paintings on the wall? What is the bright image in the center of the painting?
What gives the big shaddow? Is it the shaddow of someones head/mind; WS?
Anyway, the almost careless maner of the painting; especially of the carpet and the 3 paintings on the wall - reminds me of "the new" painting and I am not so sure anymore.
All the best, Tommy Nilsson
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Tommy, look at the wallpapers in both of the paintings, don't you think it's somewhat of a similarity between them? With the "dots"?
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Okay, so who DID make that painting? Am I the only one who's interested in finding the answer?
|
Angie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Stephen, did the art dealer say anything about how the painting "ended up in his hands"? Where does it come from? And why did he think, or who told him, that the painting was made by Sickert? Did he have any idea about when the painting could have been painted?
Those of you who think the painting is a hoax, do you think it's a recent or an old hoax? I agree with Tommy, that the painting "Womans Sphere" has some resamblence to the painting above, so I'd find it interesting to find out if it was painted before "Womans Sphere" or after.
I'm also wondering if anyone ever contacted Dr Anna Gruetzner Robins about the painting.
|
Sare Jones
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
I am doing a paper on Jack the Ripper and I was wondering if anyone knew any long term political ramifications of Jack the Ripper--I can't find any!!! Thank you! |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 214
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
The "political" ramifications of the Whitechapel murders were fairly short-lived:
Warren's resignation
Matthew's reputation never the same again
If you believe in a Government conspiracy of some sort then you might go wider (ie was the early death of the Duke of Clarence entirely co-incidental), but there is no evidence for that IMHO.
The Cleveland St scandal is linked, in that Clarence was probably involved and Abberline investigated.
You might also cite the fact that various senior policemen hinted (but never substantiated) that the case was a "hot potato" or involved the highest in the land, sort of thing. make of that what you will.
Then again, was there a Fenian connection? If so, then who knows what the unrevealed implications might have been. In the mammoth Book, Nick Warren hypothesises a "deal" being done.
Hope this might give some ideas,
Phil |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2220
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:46 am: |
|
Spry-
A fascinating find undoubtedly!I sgree with most of the comments here and can't help but think that there are too many 'obvious' clues here,the top hatted 'Jack' complete with red handkerchief and sheet over face etc.
Watching this space..............
Suzix |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 357
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Greetings Stephen P.,
The first thing that struck me when I looked at this "new" painting, was how generic it was. Almost as if some hard-working artist was told to prepare an illustration to accompany an article on a murder.
The left-hand half of the painting uses the dun colours favoured by Edwardian painters, and the effect achieved in painting the (rather luxurious)
sheets on the bed, (the dappled effect and use of browns)suggests the 1890s.
Also on the left-hand side of the picture, are the clear clues :the faded but glorious mirror
revealing what the glimpse to our left does not;
the gilt mantle clock set at 7.a.m.
What are the sources of light? Does the chink in the curtains letting through glorious sunlight,also light up the left hand side of the scene?
To me, the deceased looks younger and more "comely"; more a twentieth century nude than
one of a century before.
The blood splashes are portrayed in a rather restrained way.No Sickert- like random gore there.
There seems to be a small fawn piece of carpet under the trailed bed-sheet.
And what is one to make of the bloody touches on the piece of paper on the floor?
To me, the right-hand side of the painting appears to be rather darker.More impressionistic.
But the style of painting looks different for the Ikea mat under the Top-Hatted Person's feet.
That mat looks out of place to me.
And what is that dried flower arrangement/metal sculpture protruding in from the right?
The Top Hatted one looks like a slightly built male or a female in male attire!
And what of the Top Hatted One's garb?
The Top Hat itself, looks completely out of place in this setting.More suited to those lovely Georgian coaching scenes of convivialising gents
after the (ahem) fox hunt.The hat is an anachronism.The collar on the coat looks very dated too.
Contrast the clear detail in the Ikea rug under Top Hats feet with the rather impressionisitic water jug to that person's right.
I agree with Chris about the rutting stags painting being rather Landseer.
To sum up: this painting to my mind,is a generic murder scene painting churned out by some hard-working magazine illustrator to go with a story,
and some of the items shown (the blood-stained letter; the red handkerchief;the seven o'clock
timing), are all clues which the reader was to use to try to solve the murder.
I have seen Sickerts Camden Town murders painting and they are not so clearly finished as this one.
As one poster said, you have to stand back to get the clear picture.
I think that is what we have to do.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
The portrait looks very much like Catherine Eddowes would have looked to me.Looking at her features in the mortuary photograph you can see Catherine"s high cheekbones and slightly pointed chin .She also had abundant wavy hair[although when young this was described by friends, who had known her in Wolverhampton,as being dark auburn-with age -43 it may have faded and darkened.Catherine was also described by the people in Wolverhampton as being good looking.
I remember reading in Stephen Knights book about a painting by Sickert which depicts a woman thought to be Catherine who may have modelled for him.I remember him referring to her "necklace" as indicating that Sickert was referring to Catherine"s murder because of one of the "hoax" letters sent not long after which talked about the ripper giving her a "very pretty necklace".
If it is indeed by Sickert,and I must admit it appears to have his "handwriting " to me [in a way that the one above it does not],he may simply have managed to get access to the mortuary photos because of his fascination with the case and his high connections.Its not at all unusual for artists to be interested in depicting urder,rape,war,all sorts of violence-and for a number of reasons.It certainly doesnt mean the artist is a murderer rapist,conquering soldier him or herself.Currently there is a major exhibition of Carravagio"s work at the National Gallery.Many of his paintings depict violence,decapitation etc[and he being very unusual in this respect actually did commit a murder and was probably murdered himself].But even Carravagio didnt only depict violence.A fantastic painter too ,right up there with the very greatest of European painters of any age.
Natalie |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 358
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Out here in Australia a London "Spectator" review of Matthew Sturgis' new biography "Walter Sickert : a Life" has appeared ( around March 12-13th) in the "Weekend Australian". A Murdoch publication.
It may be quite coincidental but Richard Stone's review is overall, very praising of Sturgis' opus.
It is published by Harper Collins, another Murdoch company.
For those who do not know, the book contains a Postscript. An analysis of Patricia Cornwell's Sickert evidence. The reviewer describes it as a "superb demolition". |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 362
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Sorry to hog the board.I have noticed two other unusual things in the mysterious painting.
One: the reason the Top-Hatted one's brim appears to be strange is the wearer looks to have their hair tied up in a bun at the back. Thereby causing the brim of the topper to be out of shape.
Making it more likely the wearer was a woman?
Two:Using the metal struts in the bed-end as a guide, the positioning of the deceased person's feet are different in the mirror than as visible to the left foreground of the picture.
The figure whose feet are visible on the bed has her right foot against strut number two.Her left foot is between struts three and four.
The image of the deceased, visible in the mirror,
has her right foot closer to struts three and four.
That is, further along the bed. There seem to be more downward struts in the mirrored bed-end than on the one visible in the left foreground of the painting.
I have no opinion if Walter Sickert painted this picture.
Interesting mystery though, Stephen, thanks for airing it. |
Joan Taylor.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
It's a fun find, but I would be extremely careful. The fundamentals are missing, whereas Sickert's perspective, layering, and attention to tonal detail was almost flawless, though much less vibrant in his declining years.
There is implication, much too blatent for Sickert's usual . Sickert sets us serious puzzles, and doesn't make confessions. Here a man gets up from a bed where a woman lies with her legs a little 'spread eagled'- ( a modern term) , and packs his hat-box, wearing a top-hat. The top hat wasn't a clue then, they all wore them. :-)
Run it by Bonnams' researchers, but I fear they will burst your balloon Steve.
Don't worry, not to critisise, this is always happenning to people re discoveries.
The blood/hankerchief as described by Hutchinson in his evidence would be very unsubtle for Sickert, who never blatently painted Police evidence, and I wonder when sexually aware Sickert confused a gent's bottom with the back end of a ......stag? !!
The hat and coat is dated 1850.
What's interesting though is that Eddy is implied, (The stags in the picture that 1960's 'informants' suggested he garrotted in preparation for his committing the ripper murders.) And we KNOW IT WASN'T EDDY !!!!!
I think it's a very good, bad joke. An old one or a new one? Sickert, at the height of his fame, claimed he could walk endlessly round a room full of 'his pictures' and not recognise a single one.
It might be by one of the gossiping, excitable students he slept with, in whom he almost never confided. But there would not be era mistakes.
Would Sickert have woven such an interesting set of clues all his life, only to draw a rather plonking picture that appares to state, "here is Eddy, MJK's murderer, nurturing his hat?"
Well done though Steve for putting this forward. Poor old Ed' though. Again!
|
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
Having re-examined the picture, I also concede the previous points that the lamp and wallpaper appears to be 1930. The implications and subtleties are very contrived. An unlikely Sickert; probably a 1960's picture. |
Amanda Turner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
In no way am I implying that Sickert was or was not Jack the Ripper. Has anyone else noticed what appears to be a face on top of the hat in Sickert's "The Straw Hat?" I think this just shows he liked to interject things into his paintings and people should not assume he is Jack the Ripper simply because of his interjections. |
James Holloway
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Hmmm good find there. Im not Ripper expert by any means but I certainly like to think that Im quite the Ripper expert. The painting appears to be, as someone said, very nice with some good splashes of colour and a bed in it. Did anyone else notice the thing beside the guy? And what of the other thing? It seems the painter in question forgot one little detail tho. Anyway, who here likes Pink Floyd? |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
