|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:09 pm: |       |
I have just come across a new clue that points directly to Walter Sickert as JTR. I have not seem anyone in print, including Patricia Cornwell, mention this clue before now. But as I have read only a few books on JTR and Sickert, as well as the contents of this and several other related websites, and I do not claim to have examined every Ripper book on every suspect, I may have missed someone else having previously come across this clue. In which case, my hat is doffed to anyone who got there first.
The clue is a 1929 Sickert painting in the Tate in London, entitled "The Servant of Abraham." Lest anyone miss the importance that Sickert attached to this title, the artist has painted the full title across the bottom of the picture -- something I have not seen in other Sickert paintings. The painting can be viewed as the artist's painted confession of his crimes as JTR. It is a small image of a colossal head. Here it is:
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=13420&searchid=4282&tabview=image
The Tate's background caption (viewed at)
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=13420&searchid=4282
states:
"This is, in fact, a self-portrait. Sickert painted himself many times, and during the 1920s he sometimes depicted himself as a biblical figure. He made this at the age of sixty-nine, working from a squared-up photograph which had been taken by his third wife, Therese Lessore. He intended that it should look like part of a larger wall-painting and observed, ‘We cannot well have pictures on a large scale nowadays, but we can have small fragments of pictures on a colossal scale’. Abraham was an Old Testament patriarch, but it is not known why Sickert chose this title, or why he felt it applicable to himself."
Why indeed? For time immemorial, the biblical story of Abraham has been a major theme for painters, most famously Rembrandt, principally for one reason: Abraham's willing attempt to slit the throat of his only son Isaac at God's order. Those unfamiliar with Rembrandt's world-famous depiction of this biblical event can click on:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/R/rembrandt/abraham.jpg.html
Here is a recounting of the story of Abraham and Isaac, taken from a religious website:
"When Isaac became a young boy, God spoke to Abraham and commanded him to take his son to Mount Moriah and offer him as a sacrifice to God. This was God’s test of Abraham’s faith. Abraham loved his son very much, but did not hesitate to follow God’s words for he was a man whose faith in God was strong. As Abraham and his son reached the place where the sacrifice was to be performed, Isaac said to his father, “Father, where is the lamb that is to be sacrificed?” Abraham replied, “My son, God will provide the lamb”. It is not known how eventually Abraham told his son that he was to be the sacrifice, but Isaac courageously laid on the sacrificial place ready to be sacrificed for god. As Abraham was taking out his knife, his hands were trembling. He was about to sacrifice his son when heard the voice of God saying, “Abraham, Stop! Do not hurt your son. You have proven your faith and shown how much you love Me by willing to sacrifice your son for Me. Therefore, I shall bless you and your family, and through you, I shall bless all the nations on earth”. God also provided a lamb for the sacrifice. Abraham went home along with his son, and their hearts full of love and faith."
So, according to the tale, Abraham was willing to slash his son's throat to prove his faith in God. When God stayed Abraham's hand, God provided a substitute victim -- a sacrificial lamb -- that Abraham then eviscerated (or burnt to death, depending on your translation.)
That Walter Sickert saw himself as the servant of Abraham is absolutely evident. As Abraham's servant, he too was following God's command to sacrifice substitute victims by slashing their throats, thus proving his faith in God.
There is also an interesting visual detail in this revelatory self-portrait. You will note the dark corneas in Sickert's two eyes. One points forward and looks directly at the viewer. The other points upward -- perhaps towards God. Thus he has the demented look of a frenzied killer in a fanatical trance. As the Tate notes, this is not the only painting in which Sickert depicts himself as a biblical figure. But in this one, which he painted at the age of 69, his message is loud and clear: "I am Jack The Ripper -- and I did what I did at God's command!"
Regards to all,
Mark Starr
I am enclosing what is known as a disposable return email address for anyone who would like to contact me directly about this new Sickert clue. A disposable email address is one I can easily delete if it becomes a magnet for spam or abusive email responsives. (If Sickert were alive today, he might be driven to yet more crimes because of spam.) If you have something interesting or informative to relate on the subject, I will be most interested to read it either here in this forum or in a direct email.
plelf-spam@sbcglobal.net
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 237
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
So Mark,
By your own words then, everyone who has painted the scene of Abraham from Rembrandt on down, is actually confessing to being a serial murderer and slitter of women's throats. I mean it couldnt just be that Sickert picked this popular scene to paint just like hundreds before him could it? Nope, it's an obvious confession! |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 1:29 pm: | |
Well Ally
It is obvious when you think about it.
After all when someone called Mister Iceberg writes a book about the sinking of the Titanic then he must have sunk it... of course.
Sherlock would be proud of us.
'Alimentary, my dear Watson!' he would have said.
When are these punters going to realise that the only thing Sickert ever murdered was art?
And he made a bloody good job of that. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 43
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
"...We finish with his being willing to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis XII. There was no servant in that. But in Genesis XIV, we do come to a servant of Abraham....Abraham, being old and near to death, makes his servant swear to him that he will not marry his son Isaac to any of the daughters of the Canaanites, amongst whom they dwelt, but to go to Mesopotamia and choose for him a worthy bride. The faithful servant does this and brings back Rebekah...
The servant, then had a double role. He had firstly to negate the possibility of Isaac's marrying unworthily....In his mind, he had secured the succession, by putting aside Mary Kelly and those women friends of hers to whom she had imparted her knowledge of the scandalous liaison between the Heir Presumptive and a woman unfit to be queen, which would have rocked England..." etc. etc.
Jean Overton Fuller. Sickert & the Ripper Crimes. Mandrake of Oxford Ltd. 1990.
Wolf. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 231
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
AP I agree with both yourself and Ally about the"clue" but please AP Sickert was a fabulous painter particularly of the Music Hall and the
outstanding figure of his time in British Art.
He is still greatly admired and although you are absolutely entitled to dislike his work I think its a bit off to rubbish him the way you do.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 764
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
My apologies, Natalie, you are of course right.
As you rightly point out it is all a matter of individual taste. He is not my cup of tea at all but I suppose was a talented man with the brush.
I do have the nagging feeling though that the newly found respect and admiration for his work does go hand in hand with the poor chap being named as a suspect back in the 80's for the role of Jack the Ripper. Fame by proxy as it were.
I suppose ultimately I am not impressed by his work simply because of the competition at the time from over the English Channel. I know whose work I would go for if I had to pick an artist who painted Music Hall and it would not be poor old Sickert. |
Holger Haase
Sergeant
Username: Holger
Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
"I do have the nagging feeling though that the newly found respect and admiration for his work does go hand in hand with the poor chap being named as a suspect back in the 80's for the role of Jack the Ripper. Fame by proxy as it were."
Excellent point! I do quite like Sickert (and no I don't think he was JTR), but must admit that if it wasn't for his being a "suspect" I'd have never heard of him in the first place.
Guess at least something good is coming out of the accusations. :-)
Holger
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Dear Mr Starr,
Yup. Most of the posters who have an interest in Sickert & Co., are familiar with this painting. So, what are you suggesting, in that, you somehow disclose a 'clue'? Are we now to see Mr Sickert in a biblical light...no longer of the fistula penile appendage impaired? And then, what will this interpretation bring to bear on the socio- pathological praxis of Jack the Ripper?
Why not try to solicit a clue from "The Raising of Lazarus"...a disciple of Jesus Christ!
Rosey :-) |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 237
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Well I really should let this go AP and accept that he simply is not your "cup of tea".This in itself though interests me because he was forever challenging the decorous gentility and good taste he thought bedevilled British Art[which is more likely the reason for his present popularity, I would think than this nonsense about him being Jack the Ripper].Moreover your own work especially
re the Cutbush family strikes me as being about something similar----or am I way off mark here?
I have the catalogue of his retrospective at the Royal Academy in 1993 and if we ever meet at one of the Ripper events I"ll lend it you since it covers a far greater range than usual,
Best Natalie. |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Dutch Post-Impressionist Painter, 1853-1890 Vincent Van Gogh cut off his own ear! He even painted himself with a bandaged ear!
Why do I bring this up? In the Jack the Ripper letters that are believed to be from the killer. JTR talks about cutting the ears off the victims. If Sickert were JTR would this mean he got the ear idea from fellow artist "Vincent Van Gogh" or could it be that Vincent Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper? There's "The Royal Conspiracy" how about the "Artist Conspiracy" painted in blood?
I DID Read Patrica Cornwell's JTR book. Some of the things she states in this book do raise your eyebrow. However she falls short of putting the bloody knife in Sickerts hand as fact. I give her a 50/50. As in 50% of what she comes up with should be looked into more. Case in point the "GUESTBOOK" with the drawings and the term "Jack the Ripper" writen in it. Unless it truns out to be a hoax like the so-called Maybrick Diary Controversy. Who drew these images in this guestbook? Was it Sickert? Who knows? Because Patrica Cornwell starts her other 50% which is just her veiws on how she believes Sickert was Jack the Ripper. UGH! I wish that Patrica Cornwell would have copied all these pages so that everyone could see the guestbook for themselfs. But she again just gives her veiw of them. I think she got to caught up in her own veiw point to use the clues she found to good use. Someone else should take over looking into her clues, because she went off the deep end with her emotions.
Sorry but until there is more that points to Sickert being Jack the Ripper, I'm not buying it any more than Lewis Carroll or the Royal Conspiracy. To quote Queen Victoria, "We are not amused." |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 772
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Yes, Natalie, let’s not fall out over poor old Sickert.
I do know his work very well, and I always think of him as the Byron of his age, got involved in a lot of stuff not related to his actual art, produced one good work and took tea on that for the rest of his life, left behind him a legacy of sin and gin and hordes of illegitimate and unrequited lovers and children, made his mark and then sat in park.
Byron wrote one good poem, but just pick up his collected works and it will break your arm, however his reputation in society will long outlive his art, just as will Sickert’s. They were both bad boys, imbued with the task of stretching the moral fabric of society to a point where it would burst, and both Byron and Sickert would be more than happy to sign into a hotel today as Mickey Mouse, but that doesn’t mean they killed poor old Minnie.
And my dear girl, you are of course quite right. I very often sign myself into hotel rooms as Mickey Mouse, or Byron, or even Sickert.
Guilty as charged.
I didn’t kill Minnie either, she just sort of faded away.
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
Well, let's see if I can dash off a quick response before dinner to Rosemary O'Ryan -- whose name sounds like it might have been a Ripper victim, even if she was not.
Rosemary wrote:
> Yup. Most of the posters who have an interest in Sickert & Co., are familiar with this painting.
I would hope so. Sickert's "The Servant of Abraham" has been on display in the Tate Gallery in London for more than a half-century. And it can be seen on the Tate Gallery website. It is not the painting that I am revealing, it is its significance to the Ripper murders that I am pointing out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, while Jean Fuller may have also linked this painting to the Ripper murders, it was not for the same reasons -- and frankly I don't find her interpretation of this painting, as quoted by Wolf Vanderlinden, very compelling. Moreover, if Sickert's painting had indeed showed a Biblical scene --either Abraham about to slit Isaac's throat, as in Rembrandt's famous work, or a depiction of the servant mentioned in Genesis 14 -- I would say this painting probably had no more relevance to the Ripper Murders than any other painter's Biblical paintings.
>So, what are you suggesting, in that, you somehow disclose a 'clue'?
If anyone has already written about Sickert justifying his crimes in this painting as the slaughter of substitute victims to replace Isaac as Abraham's intended sacrifice at God's command, then I would be most interested to have a specific citation.
>Are we now to see Mr Sickert in a biblical light...no longer of the fistula penile appendage impaired?
Yes and no. Yes, in 1929 at the age of 69, Sickert had, apparently for the first time in his life, a religious spasm of some sort. Whether the three religious paintings in his last years were all part of a delusion to deal with his crimes before he died, or whether his religious preocupations were genuine repentance, no one can say for sure. But my inclination is to believe that the painting is a genuine confession, yet Sickert had no remorse whatsoever and he repented nothing.
And no, this painting is no reason to discard Cornwell's case based on Sickert's penile fistula. The 5 canonical Ripper murders occurred in 1888. "The Servant of Abraham" was painted in 1929. Sickert's motivations in 1888 and in 1929, whatever they were, were hardly the same. Sickert may well have been driven to a homicidal frenzy in 1888 (and perhaps other years also) by psychopathic conditions based on his sexual disfunction. And in 1929, Sickert may well have been driven by a combination of religious delusions and his pathological egotism to devise this painted confession. For a list of possible reasons why Sickert would have painted "The Servant of Abraham," please see my previous post.
>And then, what will this interpretation bring to bear on the socio- pathological praxis of Jack the Ripper?
In my view, this painting says nothing about Sickert's socio-pathological praxis in 1888. But it says a great deal about what Sickert thought in 1929 about the events in 1888, and about what he wanted people to believe about him in the event his culpability ever became known. The painting says to me that he not only had no remorse for what he had done, secretly he was proud of it.
>Why not try to solicit a clue from "The Raising of Lazarus"...a disciple of Jesus Christ!
I assume you mean Sickert's "Lazarus Breaking His Fast," painted two years before "The Servant of Abraham." This work is also a self-portrait -- of Sickert eating some grapes. In my opinion, the two works are definitely related. The meaning of the Lazarus painting is much clearer than the significance of the Abraham painting. Sickert barely survived a brief but devastating illness in 1926-7. In his Lazarus painting, he marks his return to the living. The salient point about both paintings is this: neither work is about religion, or Lazarus, or Abraham; both works are self-portraits focused on Walter Richard Sickert and only Walter Richard Sickert.
Regards to Rosey,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
What I find both amazing and amusing is that each one of the responders, with the exception of Wolf Vanderlinden, has ignored what I actually wrote in the initial post -- and has either hawked his/her personal agenda or responded to someone else.
Let's start with Ally who got the ball rolling by making up stuff I never said, and Sickert never did. Ally wrote: "By your own words then, everyone who has painted the scene of Abraham from Rembrandt on down, is actually confessing to being a serial murderer and slitter of women's throats. I mean it couldnt just be that Sickert picked this popular scene to paint just like hundreds before him could it? Nope, it's an obvious confession!"
Ally, none of my own words ever said that Walter Sickert painted the scene of Abraham [and Isaac], and certainly not as Rembrandt and others have painted it -- Abraham's knife held against Isaac's throat. If you had bothered to look at the painting on the Tate Gallery website, you might have noticed that the painting is simply a self-portrait of Sickert's head, and the only thing that relates the painting to Abraham is the title which Sickert painted across the bottom. By the way, Sickert did not portray himself as Abraham, but as the servant of Abraham. So when you say that "Sickert painted this popular scene," it should be obvious to all you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Then comes AP Wolf who responds to Ally, not me. AP Wolf contributes nothing in his post, but simply dismisses out of hand anything that points to Sickert. Interestingly, he also bashes Sickert's reputation as an artist -- which was firmly established by his many works in major museums long before anyone ever linked him to the Ripper murders. Tell me, Mr. Wolf, do you have more than 50 works on display in the Tate Gallery for more than a half-century -- not to mention those paintings in the Metropolitan Museum (NY), the San Francisco Palace of Fine Arts, the National Portrait Gallery, etc.?
Wolf Vanderlinden deserves a serious response for the relevant quote from the book by Jean Overton Fuller that he posted. Fuller's interpretation based on the servant of Abraham in Genesis 14 doesn't make much sense to me because the painting is Sickert's self-portrait -- not a biblical scene depicting a servant engaged in any of the activities described in Genesis 14. While Fuller's interpretation still implicates Sickert, I would be the first to say it sounds too convoluted, and therefore it seems far-fetched to me.
What is interesting to me is that Fuller completely overlooks the simple, obvious interpretation: that Sickert viewed himself as a servant of Abraham, carrying out God's order by slitting the throats of substitute victims to replace Isaac. Not only did Fuller overlook this straightforward interpretation of Abraham's single most important action in the Bible, so did Cornwell (who mentions the painting only in passing in a paragraph on Sickert's religious views,) and so did the Curator of the Tate Gallery (who clearly professes that he has no idea what the title means or why Sickert used it on what is unquestionably a self-portrait.)
It must also be remembered that by the time Sickert painted "The Servant of Abraham" at age 69, his health was failing. Two years earlier, he nearly died from a devastating illness; he commemorated his return to the living in another religious self-portrait "Lazarus Breaking His Fast." These two paintings, plus one other in which he pictured himself as Jesus, are, as far as I have been able to determine, Sickert's entire output with religious overtones. In all three, the main focus is Walter Sickert, not religion. They all were painted in his last years. Whether religion was important to Sickert, positively or negatively, in 1888 I don't know. But in his last years it was clearly very much on his mind.
Undoubtedly, Sickert realized he did not have long to live. "The Servant of Abraham" served multiple purposes for him. (1) It was his personal statement about the Whitechapel murders (and perhaps others as well), to claim personal responsibility for the slayings -- which he did not view as crimes; (2) It was his taunt to history -- just like his taunts "Ha, Ha, Ha" and "Catch me when you can" to the police and to Commisioner Warren; (3) it was the explanation of his motivation -- de rigeur for any credible confession -- that he killed these Unfortunates to fulfil God's order to Abraham, to sacrifice substitute victims for Isaac; (4) And it was his justification for what others might consider crimes -- that he was only following God's order. In that one title, "The Servant of Abraham," Sickert accomplished all these objectives. And he expressed all this in a form that was specifically his: a painting. Moreover, since Sickert's message was encrypted in the form of a painting, he was reasonably sure he would never get caught -- not in his lifetime and probably not even even by history. But even if his message was eventually decyphered, he would be by then long dead and gone, and suffer no consequences. As to the damage to his historical reputation as an artist, it is apparent from the academic studies of his life and work that Sickert's views on the importance of art in general and the significance of his art in particular (especially on the intransigence of fame) were extremely cynical in his last years.
As for the other responses in this group, I'll have to get back to them another day.
Regards to all,
Mark Starr
|
sanaya
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
I don't really believe that anyone can read Sickert's character at this point, all hearsay. It is a shame that the DNA testings didn't show any sound evidence after all the money spent, it sounds rather ridiculous spending that astronomical amount of money did not produce indicative evidence. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
Yes, Mark, I do bash Sickert as an artist, but simply because of the competition that was easily available across the English Channel when he was painting. There is no valid comparison.
English art has always suffered, we as a race do not lend ourself easily to change and imagination, or skill for that matter - I know there are exceptions - but generally speaking we are a dull old lot, and Sickert was dull.
I plead guilty to dismissing Sickert as a serious candidate for Jack the Ripper.
Mickey mouse is far more likely. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
Mark,
First off, Wolf is correct and you are not the first to find support for Sickert as JtR in that particular painting. However her version of Sickert as Jack, is a variant of the Royal Conspiracy theory where Sickert is clearing up the witnesses. And thus she finds support in that painting to for her belief in Sickert as Jack the "Cleaner", thus the biblical Servant of Abraham interpretation, cleaning up the witnesses to the unworthy bride.
"What is interesting to me is that Fuller completely overlooks the simple, obvious interpretation: that Sickert viewed himself as a servant of Abraham, carrying out God's order by slitting the throats of substitute victims to replace Isaac."
Frankly I find that as farfetched as you seem to find Fuller's interpretation. You've invented a non-biblical servant of Abraham based on the throat slitting aspect of the "sacrifice your son" story.
There is nothing to suggest that Jack the Ripper a biblically driven maniac finding victims to "replace Isaac". Isaac was an innocent, and dear to Abraham. The unfortunate victims of Jack the Ripper are anything but innocent or dear to his killer. Abraham (As a servent of god) was also told specifically NOT to slit his sons throat. I would assume that anyone claiming to be a servant of Abraham would have known that.
The post-morten mutilations in particular argue that Jack was a sexually motivated serial killer. That's all. God certainly didn't say anything about "and grab a kidney while you're at it."
In my opinion, Sickert is only one of many unfortunate people suspected of the Ripper crimes because people are reading things into their art that simply isn't there. (Like poor Lewis Carroll)
In my opinion, art is a wonderful mirror that often tells us more about the person looking at it than the person creating it.
Regards,
John Hacker
(Message edited by jhacker on January 26, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 546
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
Mark,
I don't agree that this painting is any sort of confession but I do believe that you should have at least has a decent response. I know it's hard some some people to do as many dismiss Sickert outright. I do think that he could possibly be investigated more but only really to finally put him to rest as a suspect. The only thing that annoys me with regards to him being a suspect is Patricia Cornwall's lack of evidence and the parts which she obviously made up.
I know you don't agree with Jean Fuller's version of why she thinks this painting links Sickert to the Ripper murders and quite honestly I don't agree with either hers or yours really. However, the painting is called "The Servant of Abraham" and yet you believe this indicates him as the Ripper because Abraham went to sacrifice his son by slitting his throat. The thing I find wrong about that is that it was Abraham who was to kill his son not Abraham's servant. Even then, Abraham DIDN'T kill his son as God told him to stop, so I don't see how this proves anything about Sickert.
I can't really say anything about his art as I haven't really seen any and to be honest I'm not really into art.
Sarah |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 44
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Mark, FYI
The Raising of Lazarus. There are a couple of sketches and paintings in existence all done circa 1929. The final version of the work hangs in the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, Australia. There is also, apparently, a version in the Art Gallery of South Australia in Adelaide.
You may be interested in reading my article "the Art of Murder" which looks at Sickert's art and any connection to the Ripper murders. This can be found on this site in the Ripper Media section in the July 2002 edition of Ripper Notes.
Wolf. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:32 pm: | |
Dear Mr Starr,
Hmm. You have a beguiling style, and your observations are as interesting as they are succinct. For one brief moment I thought you were about to point to "that glint of evil" in the Sickert self-portrait :-)
In all honesty, I would agree that Mr Sickert liked to put himself in the frame as Jack the Ripper. But one asks, is it all as simple as that?
[ PS. Jack only broke me hart!]
Rosey :-)
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Hello Wolf:
Thank you for pointing out "The Raising of Lazarus." However, I was not able to find any mention of the work on the website of the National Gallery of Victoria, or anywhere else on the web. Thus I was not able to compare it with Sickert's "Lazarus Breaking His Fast" -- which can be seen on the web at:
http://www.epdlp.com/sickert.html
"Lazarus Breaking His Fast" is a garish, expressionistic self-portrait of Sickert, in his bathrobe, eating some grapes in a bowl with a metal spoon. It was painted in 1927, soon after Sixkert suffered a major stroke that almost killed him. Like "The Servant of Abraham," it is not a painting of a biblical scene. It does not show Lazarus being raised from the dead by Jesus. It does not show Lazarus at all. The Biblical Lazarus and religion is only tangential to this painting. The sole focus of this painting is Walter Richard Sickert, and his recovery from near-death.
Not having been able to locate a copy of "The Raising of Lazarus," I have no idea whether you and I are talking about the same painting under a different title, or two different paintings. The website with "Lazarus Breaking His Fast" gives no location for that painting, so I can't say whether it is in Melbourne. Multiple titles are very common among Sickert's works, so it is conceivable this is the same painting. It would be nice to have a complete catalog of all of Sickert's works, each with a separate number, listing the multiple titles -- just like Mozart's Koechel Catalog. Without it, confusion among Sickert's works is inevitable.
Of course, I would be very interested to find a copy of "The Raising of Lazarus" that I could examine, hopefully on the Web.
Regarding your article, "The Art of Murder" (which I read some weeks ago when I checked out most of the content on this website), the thing that struck me most was that you made no mention whatsoever of any of Sickert's paintings with religious titles -- not Abraham, not Lazarus and not Jesus. This, despite your lengthy and oft-times perceptive descriptions of virtually every other Sickert painting that has ever aroused the slightest Ripper suspicions. It seems to me a glaring blind spot, not only in your article, but also in the writings of virtually all the other published Ripper experts. As I noted earlier, I think Jean Fuller's interpretation of "The Servant of Abraham" is totally off the mark. But at least she considered the Abraham painting. Cornwell just lists it but has nothing revelatory to say about it. Nor, it seems, does anyone else.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Hello John Hacker:
Thanks for the interesting reply, even if you don't agree with anything I've written. Despite the great lengths to which I've gone to explain my theory in excruciating detail, I still found as I read your post at least a half-dozen instances when I said to myself: he just doesn't get my points.
>First off, Wolf is correct and you are not the first to find support for Sickert as JtR in that particular painting.
I never said I was the "first to find support for Sickert as JtR in that particular painting." I have yet to see evidence that anyone--and that includes not only Jean Fuller but also specifically Wolf Vanderlinden in his article
"The Art of Murder"--has seen in "The Servant of Abraham" the same confession that I have seen, Sickert's confession as I have described it. I find Jean Fuller's interpretation of the painting irrelevant, convoluted and obscure. I think the entire royal conspiracy theory is a complete waste of time and has no bearing whatsoever on Sickert. Wolf's article on this website, which presents not only his own views on Sickert's art but also the views of many other writers on virtually every Sickert image that has ever raised any suspicions, doesn't even mention this painting at all. Frankly, I find it hard to make a clear, concise point when so many people deliberately try to blur it. So I challenge you or anyone else: give me a specific citation or a quotation of anyone who has ever written that this painting is Sickert's confession because he has painted HIMSELF as the servant of Abraham, and not the biblical scene of Abraham, Isaac, or some anonymous servant in a Bible story; that as the servant of Abraham, Sickert was carrying out God's order to slaughter substitute victims for Isaac. That is what the painting means, not the royal conspiracy. Let see you, Wolf, or anyone else show me this theory in print.
>However her version of Sickert as Jack, is a variant of the Royal Conspiracy theory where Sickert is clearing up the witnesses. And thus she finds support in that painting to for her belief in Sickert as Jack the "Cleaner", thus the biblical Servant of Abraham interpretation, cleaning up the witnesses to the unworthy bride.
It is all obscurantism and nonsense.
>>"What is interesting to me is that Fuller completely overlooks the simple, obvious interpretation: that Sickert viewed himself as a servant of Abraham, carrying out God's order by slitting the throats of substitute victims to replace Isaac."
>Frankly I find that as farfetched as you seem to find Fuller's interpretation. You've invented a non-biblical servant of Abraham based on the throat slitting aspect of the "sacrifice your son" story.
You've a right to your opinion, I don't begrudge anyone that. But the only thing of interest to me is not your opinion but your reasoning. I didn't invent a non-Biblical servant of Abraham. Sickert wrote the words "The Servant of Abraham" across the bottom of the painting, and he painted his own face. Those are the simple facts. Instead of twisting them, why not try examining them?
>There is nothing to suggest that Jack the Ripper a biblically driven maniac finding victims to "replace Isaac".
Here again you've got it wrong. I never said that Sickert was a biblically-driven maniac. On the contrary, I don't think religion played any role whatsoever in his motivation for the Whitechapel murders, or the Camden Town murders, or any other of the murders he may have committed later. This painting, if it is not an example of self-delusion and latter-day justication--is a cynical confession, directed not to himself but to posterity. It was painted in 1929, two years after Sickert nearly died of a stroke, and when his health was still failing. Undoubtedly, he was contemplating his own death. Whether he thought it was imminent or just soon, he must have pondered the question: what if proof of my crimes comes out after I am dead? How can I justify what I did to history? Just tell them I was only following God's order. Curiously, there is another instance of a "cover story" in Sickert's past directly concerning Jack the Ripper. But it is long and complicated, and will have to wait for another day.
>Isaac was an innocent, and dear to Abraham. The unfortunate victims of Jack the Ripper are anything but innocent or dear to his killer.
I don't see that at all. I think Sickert saw all his victims as innocent, as sacrificial lambs. But that was secondary. What was primary was: as drunken, penniless, homeless, prostitutes, these women were all expendable. No one gave a damn if such women were slaughtered. And in fact, Sickert was right. As Cornwell documented, after the 5 canonical murders, many other similar murders occurred for years and years. And the interest of the public, the press and the police waned from mass hysteria to the point that news of these murders gradually disappeared from public view.
>Abraham (As a servent of god) was also told specifically NOT to slit his sons throat. I would assume that anyone claiming to be a servant of Abraham would have known that.
Again you miss the point, certainly my point. The essential part of the biblical story, at least for Sickert, was not God's angel staying Abraham's hand with the knife. It was what happened immediately after that. To replace Isaac, the angel gave a substitue victim, a lamb--which Abraham then proceeded to massacre with wild abandon--all in the name of following God's command. And Genesis goes on, with God telling Abraham that because of his faith and service, God will protect his people, now the "chosen people," for eternity. Well, as far as Sickert was concerned, someone had to fuel that pump for eternity with more and more sacrifical victims. At least, that is what Sickert would have us believe by this confession.
>The post-morten mutilations in particular argue that Jack was a sexually motivated serial killer. That's all. God certainly didn't say anything about "and grab a kidney while you're at it."
Totally irrelevant. Of course, Sickert's motivations in 1888 were sexual. But in 1929, when he was a wreck of a man, his sex drive could not have been what it once was--if there was any sex drive left at all by then. Everyone seems to forget, Sickert was 69, a very frail 69, when he painted "The Servant of Abraham." Look at his photos from that time. He looks emaciated, shriveled and weak.
>In my opinion, Sickert is only one of many unfortunate people suspected of the Ripper crimes because people are reading things into their art that simply isn't there. (Like poor Lewis Carroll) In my opinion, art is a wonderful mirror that often tells us more about the person looking at it than the person creating it.
I never argue with anyone's opinion, only with their reasoning, their facts, or their understanding of my points.
Regards, Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
Mark Starr,
I can't sit still any longer.
As originally an art historian with university degree, I have only one message for you:
you read to much into the paintings, and as many self-titled art analysts, you read symbolic elements you've seen in the paintings as signs of the artist's psychological state or as possible "confessions" or mental processings to actions done in the past. Resulting in complete fairy-tales and mumbo-jumbo.
"Well, as far as Sickert was concerned, someone had to fuel that pump for eternity with more and more sacrifical victims. At least, that is what Sickert would have us believe by this confession. [...] But in 1929, when he was a wreck of a man, his sex drive could not have been what it once was--if there was any sex drive left at all by then. Everyone seems to forget, Sickert was 69, a very frail 69, when he painted "The Servant of Abraham." Look at his photos from that time. He looks emaciated, shriveled and weak."
Those are nothing but pure and unfounded speculations. No factual evidence, no real knowledge -- just wishful thinking and expressions of a vivid imagination. Similar to the case of Patricia Cornwell.
"(>However her version of Sickert as Jack, is a variant of the Royal Conspiracy theory where Sickert is clearing up the witnesses. And thus she finds support in that painting to for her belief in Sickert as Jack the "Cleaner", thus the biblical Servant of Abraham interpretation, cleaning up the witnesses to the unworthy bride.)
It is all obscurantism and nonsense."
No, it is not nonsense; John is absolutely right. Cornwell's -- as well as your own -- deductions from Sickert's paintings have actually one vital thing in common with the ridiculous Royal Conspiracy theory: they are equally far-fetched and only based on assumptions. Art reading is a completely subjective activity -- you see what you want to see in them and exaggerate and distort the artist's own intentions. Even if your interpretation of Sickert's paintings would be a correct one (since you claim that everyone else has got it wrong), I don't see a single shred of evidence to really link him to the Ripper.
Artists have on several occasions throughout art history been inspired by mythology, religion and by gruesome and macabre events in history -- that doesen't make them serial killers. Or even violent individuals.
"I never argue with anyone's opinion, only with their reasoning, their facts, or their understanding of my points."
Swell...
With "understanding of my points" you mean: agreeing?
"Their facts"...
Since when are you interested in facts?
Imagination is an important thing while interpreting art, but don't ascribe things to the painter himself, that you have no factual grounds for. It is amateurish to believe, that a painting reveals the true nature of the artist who produces it. I haven't read that much nonsense since my years in university.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 27, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 9:57 pm: | |
Mark,
Er, I got your points. Did you get mine?
When I pointed out that you were not the first to find support for his candidacy as JtR in that particular painting, it leads back into my main point. Interpretation of art tells us more about the viewer than the artist in most cases.
Fuller sees in it what she wants to, because she came at it from the point of view that Sickert was JtR in a cleanup conspiracy. You came at it from the point of view that he was JtR, and used the throat slitting aspects as a confessional.
There is nothing in there that would lead an impartial viewer to say "Hey! That was written by Jack the Ripper!"
"Again you miss the point, certainly my point. The essential part of the biblical story, at least for Sickert, was not God's angel staying Abraham's hand with the knife. It was what happened immediately after that. To replace Isaac, the angel gave a substitue victim, a lamb--which Abraham then proceeded to massacre with wild abandon--all in the name of following God's command. And Genesis goes on, with God telling Abraham that because of his faith and service, God will protect his people, now the "chosen people," for eternity. Well, as far as Sickert was concerned, someone had to fuel that pump for eternity with more and more sacrifical victims. At least, that is what Sickert would have us believe by this confession."
No, I don't miss your point. I simply don't buy into it. The servant of Abraham *is* a biblical character, who had nothing to do with throat slitting.
"Totally irrelevant. Of course, Sickert's motivations in 1888 were sexual. But in 1929, when he was a wreck of a man, his sex drive could not have been what it once was--if there was any sex drive left at all by then. Everyone seems to forget, Sickert was 69, a very frail 69, when he painted "The Servant of Abraham." Look at his photos from that time. He looks emaciated, shriveled and weak."
Again, you demonstrate my point. You're taking your interpretation of Sickert as JtR, and his religious beliefs, working up a complicated, and improbable "confession" from 3 words "Servant of Abraham" that isn't even supported by the bible that he is supposedly using as the "Rosetta Stone" of his confession.
While I won't descend to calling your opinion "obscurantism and nonsense", I find Fuller's interpretation to at least make biblical sense. But all I can really say is what I said before:
In my opinion, art is a wonderful mirror that often tells us more about the person looking at it than the person creating it.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Chief Inspector Sarah writes:
>Mark,
>I don't agree that this painting is any sort of confession but I do believe that you should have at least has a decent response.
Let's see if I've understood you correctly. Virtually all the posters except Wolf V., but including you (see below), have misrepresented what I have written, arguing with straw men on their own personal Ripper agendas. Several have peremptorally dismissed out of hand anything that
points in the direction of Walter Sickert, even bashing his reputation as an artist in comparison to the greatest French Impressionist painters active at the turn of the century -- while not bothering to even look at "The Servant of Abraham" nor examine it critically and dispassionately in the light of what is known about Sickert and The Ripper. The general
tone of many of the posts is one of omniscient condescension and withering sarcasm. At considerable length, I have repeatedly tried to
clarify every detail in support of my theory, but in some cases to no avail. Evidently, what bothers you is not the in-"decency" of my
response but my determination to defend my thesis. Perhaps you think that anyone who believes that Sickert was Jack the Ripper should slink away from this website with his tail between his legs because no one here happens to agree with him.
>I know it's hard some some people to do as many dismiss Sickert outright. I do think that he could possibly be investigated more but only
really to finally put him to rest as a suspect.
It is nice to see you have such an open mind on the subject. An new investigation to back up your conclusion.
>The only thing that annoys me with regards to him being a suspect is Patricia Cornwall's lack of evidence and the parts which she obviously
made up.
Fabricated evidence? Where's the beef? In any event, my posts are not about defending Cornwell's evidence. My posts are solely focused on Sickert's confession -- that is, his painting "The Servant of Abraham", and everything else I have mentioned thus far is related directly to that painting. I leave to others to argue endlessly over the candidacy of one
suspect verus another. Incidentally, I should add that the painting is but one of two nails in Sickert's coffin (yes, I know he was cremated.)
The other, is much more complex, but to me just as compelling as the Abraham painting, and again no one that I know of has yet noticed its real significance to the case. I don't mind skeptics picking apart my evidence with a microscope, but I am hardly inspired by the bemused contempt and turf defense I see not only on this thread but also everywhere else in these Casebook discussion groups, to bother unravelling all the details.
>I know you don't agree with Jean Fuller's version of why she thinks this painting links Sickert to the Ripper murders and quite honestly I don't agree with either hers or yours really. However, the painting is called "The Servant of Abraham" and yet you believe this indicates him as the Ripper because Abraham went to sacrifice his son by slitting his throat.
No, that is not why I believe that this painting is Sickert's confession. Please re-read any of my other posts.
>The thing I find wrong about that is that it was Abraham who was to kill his son not Abraham's servant. Even then, Abraham DIDN'T kill his son as God told him to stop, so I don't see how this proves anything about Sickert.
You too are hung up on the fact that Abraham didn't kill Isaac. But he did slaughter the sacrificial lamb God's angel provided as a substitute victim, thus following God's orders. As a result, God rewarded Abraham with perpetual protection for his descendants (3 major religions), in particular the Jews, as chosen people. Sickert, as Abraham's servant, merely replenished the deal over time with a few more sacrificial victims to make sure the contract didn't expire. The painting does not show Sickert as Abraham. It shows Sickert as the servant of Abraham. If the story of Abraham in Genesis had ended abruptly with the angel of God staying Abraham's hand with the knife poised at Isaac's throat, the story would not have much importance in religion or history. Or to Sickert or Jack the Ripper. By the way, it might be interesting for someone to re-examen in the light of my theory the graffitto on the wall about "The Juwes." I have no idea if it is related, but it might be.
>I can't really say anything about his art as I haven't really seen any and to be honest I'm not really into art.
Whether or not anyone regards Sickert as a painter of significance, the only fact that is really relevant to this discussion is that Walter
Sickert unquestionably believed that he was a painter of historical significance. His painted confession might be delusional or it might be
genuine. But he painted it, not as an act of religious repentance, but (1) to taunt history, and (2) as a cover story for posterity in the event he ever got caught after his death.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
RoseyO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 7:52 pm: | |
Dear Mr Starr,
So, tell us about "The Servant of Abraham"...is it the title alone that passes your fancy, or was it the 'content', or BOTH?
I personally consider it to be a 'masterpiece' of the 20th Century rather than a melodramatic 'penitential confession'...but, then, I am also drunk with the lamb of god!
Rosey Nose :-) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
