|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:31 am: |       |
Glenn Anderson -- "originally an Art Historian with a University degree" -- wrote: "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."
If, as you state, my "interpretation of Sickert's paintings would be a correct one," then there would indeed be "a shred of evidence to really link him to the Ripper": a signed confession, which is evidence admissible in any courtroom in the world. Moreover, after a near-fatal stroke at age 69, this confession might be considered legally tantamount to a "death-bed confession" -- which, as a Crime Historian, surely you know is exceptionally powerful evidence in a criminal trial. Especially, in Sickert's case -- where is it is easy to document that he was in complete possession of his mental faculties in 1929 and under no coercion from anyone.
As for the rest of your post, as I noted elsewhere, I never argue with other's opinions. However, I must point out that I never claimed "that everyone else has got it wrong." I claimed that most of the responders in this thread have mis-represented what I wrote, usually to hawk their personal agendas. And now I can add you to this illustrious group. I think Jean Fuller got it wrong, but I have no idea what Wolf Vanderlinder thinks about "The Servant of Abraham." I don't think Cornwell got it wrong, even though she completely overlooked the significance of the painting and she still lacks a signed confession to prove her case.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 555
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
Mark,
Evidently, what bothers you is not the "indecency" of my response but my determination to defend my thesis.
It doesn't bother me at all that you defend your thesis. Why do you think it did?
No, that is not why I believe that this painting is Sickert's confession. Please re-read any of my other posts.
I have and I still reach the conclusion that you believe this to be Sickert's confession as Abraham was to cut his son's throat. I have read your posts carefully and still this is how it is coming across.
Hasn't it occurred to you that this is just a self portrait with a fancy biblical name that means nothing at all, especially nothing at all to do with the Ripper murders.
When I said that Patricia Cornwall annoys me with her "evidence", I didn't mean that I thought you were defending her in the slightest.
I'm basically confused about your whole last post. It seems you are annoyed with my post for some reason when I was only giving you a deserved response as I said in the opening of my post. You complained that no-one had responded seriously to your initial post so that's what I was doing as I said you at least deserved a decent response. Just because I don't agree with you on this matter it doesn't make it any less of a decent response because at least I was replying to you on the subject and not mocking you or ignoring you.
I still don't understand how you are linking "The Servant of Abraham" to Abraham carrying out God's work. The servant didn't perform God's work, he performed Abraham's work. If you didn't mean this then I'm sorry but that is how you are coming across.
Sarah |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Mark.
I assure you that The Raising of Lazarus and Lazarus Breaks His fast are two separate paintings. There is no confusion on my part over the names or images.
Secondly. "Regarding your article, "The Art of Murder"... 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."
"The painting titled, Lazarus Breaks His Fast, (c. 1927), is, I feel, the most revealing of the paintings said to offer clues to the Royal conspiracy. The painting shows an elderly man with a napkin tucked under his chin, sitting at a table eating what appears to be grapes with a spoon. The model was Sickert himself who painted the picture from a photograph...." yadda, yadda, yadda. Vanderlinden, Wolf. The Art of Murder, Ripper Notes Volume 4 Number 1, July 2001.
The article, although comprehensive, was not a complete look at all the possible works by Sickert that might have some Ripper connection. I left out The Servant of Abraham, along with several drawings and sketches, for the simple reason that, other than the works based on Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes, there seems to be absolutely no connection to the Whitechapel murders in the art of Walter Richard Sickert. It is all in the eye of the beholder. As I stated in my article Sickert's work has become the "the Rorschach test of Ripperology," where, " like the Rorschach test, you see what you want to see."
Wolf. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 392
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Mark
Okay, first off, let's take Cornwell completely out of the picture, her "evidence" has been debated to death on here, and as you are not supporting any of her evidence there is no point in repeating those debates.
So what is the evidence that Sickert was the Ripper. As far as I can see it is threefold.
1. He painted a picture called "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom". This is probably based on a tale he liked to tell of renting some rooms where the landlady informed him that his bedroom used to belong to Jack the Ripper. He was fascinated with the Ripper case, a fascination most likely sparked by this incident, and by the fact that he was in London at least some of the latter half of 1888 and so would recall the fuss the case caused.
Whoopy-doo. If being fascinated with the Ripper case makes you the Ripper, then all of us here are the Ripper.
2. His name has come up time and time again in connection with the Ripper, and there is no smoke without fire.
More whoopy-doo. Probably connects directly to point 1. He was fascinated by the case and talked about it a lot, so people connected his name with it.
3. His art was dark and disturbing.
And thrice whoopy-doo. If painting dark and disturbing artworks makes you a crazed serial killer, I wonder where Goya buried the bodies.
And what evidence is there against him being the Ripper. Just one item. He wasn't in London when at least one and probably more of the murders took place.
And so to your new evidence. "The Servant of Abraham". Yes, I understand your point fully. Abraham made a covenent with god by sacrificing a lamb after God spared his son. As Servant of Abraham, Sickert was continuing this covenent by sacrificing more lambs. All very well if sacrificing a lamb was the only thing Abraham did in the Bible, but the fact is that a big chunk of old testement text is taken up with various stories of his life, and in painting himself as a self portrait servant of Abraham, Sickert could just as easily have been referring to any of these other things that Abraham did. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:38 pm: | |
Mark Starr,
"a signed confession, which is evidence admissible in any courtroom in the world. Moreover, after a near-fatal stroke at age 69, this confession might be considered legally tantamount to a "death-bed confession" -- which, as a Crime Historian, surely you know is exceptionally powerful evidence in a criminal trial."
You surprise me.
Confession? You are interpreting a title on a painting -- referring to Abraham -- as a confession of the Ripper killings. Where in that "message" does it say that he claims himself to be Jack the Ripper? Because that is would it would take in court -- at least!
To see traits in a self-portrait that aren't there or to over-interpret a title are quite common fallacies, and as I said -- rather amateurish. For the most part it leads to a distortion of the artist's own intentions. I can buy that Sickert may have wanted to be identified as Jack the Ripper, but that does not mean that he really was the Ripper.
Your scribbling on a bottom of a painting doesen't mention a confession regarding him being Jack the Ripper anywhere and if you think that would be considered as a vital clue in a police investigation, I am afraid I have to disappoint you. Because you have no idea what you are talking about.
A signed confession (or an oral one) is worth practically zero unless it can be verified by factual and physical evidence. It may gain some interest in an investigation, alongside other leads, but by itself it would be useless as evidence in court to charge anyone. And here you only have a reference to Abraham, not to Jack the Ripper himself. That -- in combination with his paintings portraying the Camden murders and the Ripper events -- is not enough to label him as one of the world's most notorious serial killers. If you believe that, then you are even more careless with factual evidence than Cornwell is -- I must admit I didn't think that was possible. Hats off!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
Hello Wolf:
Sorry I overlooked your comment about Lazarus. It didn't show up on Google, and I forgot seeing it a month ago. But as I noted, you omitted "The Servant of Abraham. When you write "there seems to be absolutely no connection to the Whitechapel murders in the art of Walter Richard Sickert", my response is that is your blind spot. And it supports my claim that up to now, no one has mentioned my theory that the painting is Sickert's confession to the crimes. As for your comparison's with the Rorschack inkblots, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. The idea that this remarkable and unique painting has no connection to the Ripper case is, in my opinion, absurd on its face in the light of everything that is factually known about Sickert's life and art.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
Hello Inspector Sharp:
Thank you for relieving me of the burden of defending Patricia Cornwell. I assume her evidence is accurate, but I have no way of verifying it myself. My main point about Cornwell has always been: while she has documented a mountain of suspicious evidence on Sickert, she has yet to get the goods on him. As many people have pointed out, her nexus between Sickert and the Ripper letters does not prove that Sickert committed the murders--although some of her letters do have incriminating inside information. In my opinion, she missed the boat because she did not recognize the criminal significance of some of the evidence she undoubtedly examined. Exhibit 1 is "The Servant of Abraham."
But I think you have done exactly the same thing as Cornwell in your discussion of Sickert's painting "Jack The Ripper's Bedroom." It is obvious to me that there is a great deal of documented factual information related to this painting that you do not know. To which I will add: "Jack The Ripper's Bedroom" is, in my opinion, the key to the case, the other nail in Sickert's coffin. And again, to my knowledge, no one -- not Cornwell, not Vanderlinden, not Fuller, not anyone that I have read in print, has yet recognized why it points directly to Sickert's guilt.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Rose Nose wrote:
"So, tell us about "The Servant of Abraham"...is it the title alone that passes your fancy, or was it the 'content', or BOTH?"
BOTH! How can anyone ignore the significance of the title when Sickert painted it in his own handwriting across the bottom of the picture? This is an oil painting, not a sketch. I have not seen a title painted at the bottom of any other Sickert oil painting. Indeed, I can only think of two oil paintings by any artist in which the titles were painted on the face of the painting, and in one case the lettering is chiseled in a stone building, like a street sign. How else could Sickert say: this title, is really, really, really important! How else could he be certain that the public or Art Historians could not change one word of his title, or give it an alternate title, or call it by a nickname?
The content is just as important for what it is as what it is not. Name me a painting by any artist with a biblical title that shows a self-portrait only of the artist's face. Moreover, Sickert is not presented here in robes or any other prop that suggests the painting is a representation of the character in the bible with Sickert's features. Without the title, no one would ever think that this painting has any connection whatsoever with the bible. And most importantly, Sickert did not paint a bible scene to illustrate a story in the bible. His painting has absolutely nothing to do with the anonymous servant that Jean Fuller points out in Genesis 14. For all anyone knows, Abraham had hundreds of servants. It does not matter. What Sickert is unambiguously stating in this painting is that HE, Walter Richard Sickert, is the servant of Abraham. And as the Servant of Abraham, it was Sickert's duty to continue carrying out the task that was assigned to his master Abraham by God's angel. And that task was NOT to slit the throat of his son Isaac, but rather to slaughter an innocent sacrificial lamb in Isaac's stead.
Despite the slings and arrows being hurled in my direction, I am not making this up. Just read all about it in Genesis.
What I am adding to the story as interpretation is this: Since, in Genesis, God promised his protection for Abraham's descendants, Sickert is stating with his title that he felt compelled to contiue slaughtering sacrificial victims to keep God's protection deal in force for eternity.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
"If you think that would be considered as a vital clue in a police investigation, I am afraid I have to disappoint you. Because you have no idea what you are talking about."
Are you speaking 'ex cathedra'?
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
"I'm basically confused about your whole last post. It seems you are annoyed with my post for some reason when I was only giving you a deserved response as I said in the opening of my post. You complained that no-one had responded seriously to your initial post so that's what I was doing as I said you at least deserved a decent response. Just because I don't agree with you on this matter it doesn't make it any less of a decent response because at least I was replying to you on the subject and not mocking you or ignoring you. "
Sarah, if that is what you meant, then I apologize for any curtness in my previous post. When I read in your first post the following:
"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."
it seemed that you were saying that at least one of MY posted responses was not decent, and not that I deserved a serious response from someone in this group.
Oh well, pahrdner, where I come from it's not for nothin' I am known as Mark The Sticker.
The answer to all your other questions is: In Genesis, while Abraham did not slit Isaac's throat, he did slaughter the sacrificial lamb provided by God's angel.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hi all,
I just wanted to make a small comment. Vincent Van Gogh's act of self-mutilation occurred in November 1888, as he and his roomate Paul Gauguin were coming to the parting of their ways. It was the second most famous (or first most famous) mutilation that occurred that month of November.
Jeff
[No, I don't think that we are dealing with Vincent the Ripper - and that he stopped his slaughter due to cutting off his ear lobe and being in the hospital. His former friend Gauguin would have been surprised at Vincent's behavior if he had been the Ripper - and perhaps delighted in a sick way. Within a month (December 1888)
Gauguin would be watching the posting of the announcement of the guilloutining of the murderer
Prado outside the prison in Paris. He must have been interested in crime.]
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 212
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Mark,
I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that without the title painted on the picture, nobody would view the painting with a biblical reference in mind. Perhaps this suggests why the title is included? It forces the viewer to combine the non-biblical image with biblical themes, which they otherwise would not do.
And by doing so, Sickert manages to change the meaning of the image in a very subtle manner. He draws upon the assumption that the viewer of his painting will be familiar with the name Abraham. Then, as one views the painting, the biblical associations start to influence the interpretation. For example, the grapes may invoke an association with wine, bringing up the notion of the "water to wine" miracle, etc. The sacrificing of the lamb by Abraham also connects with Jesus, who is sometimes referred to as the "lamb of God". In other words, the image may create associations in the viewers mind between the old and new testaments, allowing one to further contemplate the connection between Jews and Christians, and emphases how they worship the same God, etc, and perhaps therefore cause one to question the validity of anti-semitism, etc. (Having not actually seen the painting, this "interpretation" is only presented as an example of how one's thoughts might go - I read earlier that the subject is eating what appears to be grapes, so I've just grabbed upon that).
Is this what Sickert intended with this painting? Specifically, no. But as with any great artist Sickert wanted those who viewed his work to think. He would want his art to induce introspection in his audience, for them to bring with them their own ideas, their own interpretations, and by adding that to his work it becomes a new piece of art every time it's viewed.
The "hidden clues" people find in Sickert's art, or any other painter from the time, reflects what they bring with them when they view his paintings because in the end, he's not depicting Jack the Ripper's murders. The one painting that has a direct connection with the JtR crimes (Jack the Ripper's bedroom), doesn't even contain a murder. It's a bedroom which he was told was JtR's bedroom. And by painting it empty, it invokes the notion that JtR is out prowling the streets looking for a victim. It makes the picture "frightening", and without such a title, that emotion would not be invoked by the image alone.
It certainly does not mean Sickert is claiming to be the Ripper.
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 9:23 pm: | |
Mark Starr,
When are you going to present your "evidence"? So far I have only seen your own personal interpretations of an oil painting and a bundle of very far-fetched speculations.
Where are the connections to Jack the Ripper in the painting you present? And how do you know that Sickert's real intentions with the painting really are those you pick up from the title? How does a title referring to Abraham evolve into a painter's confession to the Jack the Ripper murders? In what way does this become incriminating "evidence"?
When are you going to present a real answer to those questions, instead of the usual religious rambling? I am waiting.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 393
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
Mark
I see that as is the way with people who come up with bizzarro theories you only answer the questions that you want to answer and ignore any which are too tough. So I will ask again. Why does the title "The Servant of Abraham" mean that Sickert had to be referring to this particular story about Abraham and not one of the many, many other stories about Abraham contained within the bible.
I have now decided that "Ceci N'Est Pas Une Pipe" is Rene Magritte's confession to having been the killer of "Clay Pipe" Alice McKenzie. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 561
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Mark,
Thanks for the apology. I got the impression that you may have misunderstood me. Sorry about that.
The answer to all your other questions is: In Genesis, while Abraham did not slit Isaac's throat, he did slaughter the sacrificial lamb provided by God's angel.
This I don't understand. What does this exactly have to do with the painting? The title is "The Servant of Abraham" not "Abraham". Abraham should be ignored in this really and his servant in his later life should be examined. He is calling himself Abraham's servant not Abraham himself.
Sarah |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Dear Mr Starr,
Your new perspective on this Sickert painting is, indeed, worthy of these boards, and I for one hope you will enlighten us further in this matter of Sickert's 'icongraphical subtext'.
As you see, our Mr Wolf Vanderlinden is pretty well clewed-up on Sickert and his 'art', and there are others who are just as exacting - as they appear reticent - to venture their opinions re, Sickert As Suspect. (Fools rush in...etc.,).
However, I must take offence regarding your mention of the 'Isaacic lamb'. As a shepardess, my ram whose name happens to be "Abraham", insists that contrary to perceived wisdom on these boards...
"I am not that LAMB of Sickert, I am a RAM caught up in a thicket!".
You would be surprised and delighted to know that my Llama is called "Orpheus", and he is keeping a keen eye on your decent in to the Other World.
Rosey :-)
PS. Are those flies encircling Sickert's head? |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
Glenn the Crime Historian wrote:
"When are you going to present a real answer to those questions, instead of the usual religious rambling? I am waiting."
Once again, my case, in which fact and opinion are clearly delineated, has flown directly over Glenn's head, unintercepted by thought.
If Sickert returned to London today and re-enacted the 5 canonical murders on live Swedish TV, Glenn still wouldn't believe Sickert did it. I can hear Glenn now: "Just because he slit the throats of 5 women on live TV doesn't mean he did also did it in 1888."
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Mark.
First of all: "This is an oil painting, not a sketch. I have not seen a title painted at the bottom of any other Sickert oil painting. Indeed, I can only think of two oil paintings by any artist in which the titles were painted on the face of the painting..."
Actually there are several oil works by Sickert that do have the title, or other inscriptions, painted on them. Lazarus Breaks His Fast, (1927), is one. This title is hand painted by Sickert across the top of the painting and thus connects it with The Servant of Abraham, (1929).
These were two of three works with a Biblical title, the third being The Raising of Lazarus (1929) which has no inscription, that Sickert painted at around the same time. Since Sickert went out of his way to connect Lazarus Breaks His Fast and The Servant of Abraham, both with a Biblical title, both with their title hand lettered on the painting and both self portraits, what, do you believe, is their combined significance to any Ripper "confession" if any?
Other examples? Sickert's painting Miss Gwen Ffrangçon-Davies as Isabella of France in Marlowe's Edward II: La Louve has the title LA LOUVE painted across the bottom.
His painting King George V and his Racing Manager: A Conversation Piece at Aintree (Circa 1929-30) has the words "By Courtesy of Topical Press Agency / 11 and 12, Red Lion / Court E.C.4 / Aintree - 25.3.27" painted in the top right hand corner.
His painting Gwen Again, (1935 or 36) has the inscription "L'oltragio che scende sull capo d'un re / Imobil mi rende tremolo mi fe" hand written across the top.
Secondly: "When you write "there seems to be absolutely no connection to the Whitechapel murders in the art of Walter Richard Sickert", my response is that is your blind spot.... The idea that this remarkable and unique painting has no connection to the Ripper case is, in my opinion, absurd on its face in the light of everything that is factually known about Sickert's life and art."
I'm sorry Mark but "what is factually known about Sickert's life..." is that he was in France, (either in Dieppe, for a short period of time, or in St Valéry-en-Caux, for longer), during the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. If this fact is "my blind spot' then so be it. Evidence of Sickert's guilt divined from his paintings cannot supercede clear evidence of his innocence provided by historians.
Wolf. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 214
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Hi Wolf,
Has it been conclusively shown Sickert was in France at the time? I thought there was one letter which was a bit ambiguous on the issue (ambiguous if you stretch things). I don't hold any credence in the "Sickert" theory, but I'm always interested in hearing about how research has uncovered evidence, either for or against, any theory. Thanks.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Mark Starr,
You continue to disappoint me.
"Once again, my case, in which fact and opinion are clearly delineated, has flown directly over Glenn's head, unintercepted by thought."
I am sorry, Mark, but your problem is, that you have no case! And you certainly has not produced any facts -- just wild and rather confused speculations.
I am looking at this case from a criminological point of view, and I can't find anything in your theories, besides your own mind creations, that links Sickert to the Ripper. If your "evidence" is flying over my head, it is because I prefer to keep both feet on the ground. You are of course entitled to your opinions and theories, but don't claim that you have produced "incriminating evidence".
"If Sickert returned to London today and re-enacted the 5 canonical murders on live Swedish TV, Glenn still wouldn't believe Sickert did it. I can hear Glenn now: "Just because he slit the throats of 5 women on live TV doesn't mean he did also did it in 1888."
Oh no. That is different. You are trying to link a painting and a blurry title with uncertain meaning on the artist's part to Jack the Ripper.
What I am reacting to is your claim that you have enough to incriminate Sickert; I would accept your views if you would label them for what they are, namely loose speculations.
I ask you once again, where in the painting and the title's mythological reminiscences are the direct link to Jack the Ripper? How does this title become a "confession" to the Ripper murders, and how do you know for certain that your interpretation of the symbolic title is corroborative with what Sickert really intended with his painting? Or should we just take your word for it? Or Sickert's?
I am still waiting.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 244
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
Hi Mark-The following quote may be of interest to you.It is from the catalogue of the 1993 exhibition on Sickert at the Royal Academy of Art inLondon and Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam;
"The Servant of Abraham"
The servant of Abraham was entrusted by his master to leave Canaan to find a wife for Isaac in Abraham"s native land of Mesopotamia.There the servant, guided by the lord,found Rebecca at the well.The significance of the story is that through Isaac and Rebecca,God"s covenant with Abraham was fulfilled.Thus Sickert saw himself,like the servant of Abraham,as an instrument of divine will,but to aesthetic rather than spiritual ends."
Apparently as you mention yourself Sickert had been Very ill and Recovered.Myself I would see this as a temporary flirtation withGod and a sort of thanksgiving[Rather like Matisse who built a chapel for the nuns who"d taken care of him during his last illness but one in the 1950"s.
He actually lived into his 80"s-a good 10-15 years after but there seems to have been some awakened understanding of his own mortality at work rather than a desire to avoid detection as JtR.[Anyone less likely than Sickert to have been JtR in the whole of his healthy over libidinous self indulgent life I cant imagine!
A visit to any major art gallery is enough to remind anyone of the obsessions of many artists with death the cutting open of bodies wars rape[especially rape our own national art gallery has a range of famous paintings of gang rapes and a load of other criminally brutal goings on commissioned by "interested officials"[?]Surely these are not going to be suspected of being Jtr as well because of the subject matter of thir work?
Cheers Natalie |
Stan Russo
Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:40 am: | |
TO ALL,
Walter Sickert was a noted atheist. That is why he was never a Freemason. Any painting may be just for the sake of art rather than any deeper meanings
STAN |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
Stan wrote:
>Walter Sickert was a noted atheist.
Stan, if Sickert was a noted atheist, who noted it? I am not disputing that Sickert was or was not an atheist. I would like to know on what evidence you make this statement.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Rosemary O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 8:18 pm: | |
Dear Mr Andersson,
Come, come sir! Why be harsh on Mark Starr? For all your so-called 'criminological' theorizing and so-called 'offender profiling'we are no nearer to understanding the events of 1888. And god knows, the capitalist ethic has the whole of humanity speaking garbage as it sinks further into garbage...Babalonialization of the Internet!
And may I add, I am the worse offender :-)
What I think Mr Starr is saying, in a nice way, is that Mr Sickert pisses on you and all your theorizing. Now this is the extraordinary part...
Mr Sickert, in his title "The Servant of Abraham",
is not only fully aware of you as a so-called crime historian in some undefined future, but also aware of the likes of Ms. Cornwall's attempts to come to terms with the complete absence of materials of an evidentiary nature that connect Mr Sickert with the events of Whitechapel, 1888. (And she knew as much! Thus, her conclusion was of the supernatural order...HE WAS THE DEVIL!). Personally, I go along with the general consensus...Jack was a crazy juwe :-)
Dear Mr Starr,
Have you seen a picture of "The Raising of Lazarus" yet? Even the dead shall walk!You may have a point about the 'occult iconography' and I think you understand how even the most knowledgeable posters shy away from an in-depth discussion of Mr Sickert's oeuvre. That reminds me. Did you know that among many of Mr Sickert's
social circle of artists, aristocrats and politicians, was the author of that great Gothick Novel, "Dracula", a Mr ABRAHAM Stoker...of which it is said that "The Servant of Abraham" was a pean of praise to the most meaningless nonsense of the next thousand years!And, if you were to study that self-portrait without any preconceptions, you may see a Nostferatu emerge!
Dr ABRAHAM Van Helsing: "Nostferatus do not die as we do. They only become STRONGER".
Garlic!
Rosmhairi U'riion :-) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 570
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Rosemary,
Errr, come again? I didn't understand I word of what you were saying apart from defending Mark somewhere in amongst that post. I hope Glenn understands it more as it was directed at him.
However, I would just like to say Rosemary that Mark hasn't produced any FACTUAL evidence as to why this painting is Sickert's confession, he has only produced theories and quite frankly that isn't good enough.
As Natalie points out above, the painting was a reference to Abraham's servant who went and found Abraham's son a wife. This was quite obvious to me anyway and probably to most people but somehow Mark has linked this painting, not to the servant as the title suggests, but to Abraham who was to sacrifice his son to God.
Glenn isn't being too harsh, he is just asking for reasonable evidence not just speculations.
Sarah |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
