Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by John Savage 26 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - by Simon Wood 37 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 57 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - by richardh 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Darryl Kenyon 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (25 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (5 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: What EAR/ONS teaches us about JtR - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-03-2017, 01:05 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
I think hes saying he didn't actually have to physically have been in the music hall when it was dated-that an original sketch could have been done earlier when he was actually in the hall and that other follow up sketches from the original might have been done later-like in his studio for example-and dated on the day he finished that one.
You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 04-03-2017, 01:28 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
OK got it. I see what you mean by evidence now.

but that being said, all it is is evidence that some of the ripper letters were written on the same type of paper he used.
so we have hundreds of hoax letter writers and paper that was sold to what? thousands of people? how can she or her expert conclude that he was probably the letter writer of some of them based on that?

and the dated sketches only show that he was probably in London on or near those two dates.

sure its evidence of something-but hardly evidence for being the ripper.

I mean is that really "far more" "evidence" that the real crackpot theories have?

and Davids already pretty much debunking a lot of her ideas. It makes me wonder about the quality of her research and ability to objectively and correctly analyze material.

Abby the paper it is argued by her expert is a very limited run. So far I have seen no counter argument to that.

You are right David has argued against some of her suggestions. But in reality it's only a few.

And you are correct I do not think it is evidence for Sickert being the ripper either.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 04-03-2017, 01:33 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.

In that particular case I would agree with you David

Again what we are doing here is looking at a suggestion and seeing if is viable at all. Thats to me how research should progress.


You obviously say not a viable argument. I on the other hand do not rule out the possibility on some sketches, but not actually on the ones used.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 04-03-2017, 02:05 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.
I agree.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 04-03-2017, 02:36 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
I agree.
Abby

Glad we all agree on the end result even if David and I on this occasion are applying slightly different reasoning..

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 04-03-2017, 03:01 PM
sleekviper sleekviper is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 271
Default

Yes, he made sketches of sketches. He imported elements of previous sketches into what he was planning to use as a final piece. Some elements are used multiple times, some not at all. He would not rework what was done, he would create a new sketch. Which is why there are 166 known Katie Lawrence, and 148 Queenie Lawrence. No relation to each other. Which is why he would create a final composite before the actual painting, to make sure all the elements worked as he planned. That requires sketches of sketches.
__________________
I confess that altruistic and cynically selfish talk seem to me about equally unreal. With all humility, I think 'whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might,' infinitely more important than the vain attempt to love one's neighbour as one's self. If you want to hit a bird on the wing you must have all your will in focus, you must not be thinking about yourself, and equally, you must not be thinking about your neighbour; you must be living with your eye on that bird. Every achievement is a bird on the wing.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 04-03-2017, 03:03 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,316
Default

I have no idea what Sickert's practices were but have spent most of my life around artists in one form or another and one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that they all do things differently..

Some would do a study (you might call it a sketch) and later do further sketches working on fleshing out details from the original (sometimes returning to the location othertimes not), now one might date those studies the date they finished that particular study, but still use the first title, others would carry the date of the original study over, yet others would update the date when they revisited the location.

So in a nutshell my experience would lead me to put little weight on the date of a study unless I was intimately familiar with how the artist in question worked.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:45 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,576
Default

Good evening Abby,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
I simply don't have the werewithall to buy and read every suspect book that comes out.
No need to buy it. Every public library in America has Patricia Cornwell's books. If you pay taxes you've already bought it, might as well read.

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 04-04-2017, 11:26 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleekviper View Post
Yes, he made sketches of sketches. He imported elements of previous sketches into what he was planning to use as a final piece. Some elements are used multiple times, some not at all. He would not rework what was done, he would create a new sketch. Which is why there are 166 known Katie Lawrence, and 148 Queenie Lawrence. No relation to each other. Which is why he would create a final composite before the actual painting, to make sure all the elements worked as he planned. That requires sketches of sketches.
Sleekviper, your post begins with two statements about Sickert:

1. He made sketches of sketches.

2. He imported elements of previous sketches into what he was planning to use as a final piece.

But 2 does not, of course, follow from 1. There is no doubt, I'm sure, that Sickert incorporated elements from his sketches into his final pieces. That, after all, is the whole point of the sketches. But where is the evidence that he made sketches of sketches?

Earlier you told us you were getting this from Wendy Baron's 2006 book (although you make no mention of her in your most recent post, despite my challenge, repeated in posts #173, #192 and #201, that she doesn’t support what you are saying). Can you identify where she says this? More to the point, where does she say that he would date these sketches in a misleading fashion so that the sketches were not made at the place and on the date annotated on those sketches?

In fact, I suggest the direct opposite is true. Not only does Wendy Baron herself rely on Sickert's annotated dates and locations when she says that he made sketches of Queenie Lawrence at the Bedford Music Hall in January 1888 (as I pointed out in #192 above) but there is further clear evidence that she believed that Sickert's sketches of music hall performers were drawn in the music halls (and not in his studio):

EXAMPLE 1

On p.166 she says:

"It is not always possible to identify the artistes portrayed by Sickert. Sometimes he inscribed their names on his sketches; sometimes he inscribed the dates and the names of the music halls in which he drew them."

That makes clear that the sketches on which he included the music hall names were drawn in those music halls.

EXAMPLE 2

Also on p.166 (in respect of undated sketches of Katie Lawrence) she says:

"Katie Lawrence left England to tour Australia in January 1888 and was away until May 1889. Therefore, all studies of Katie Lawrence must have been drawn in 1887, at Gatti’s in May and July (when she appeared there) and/or in other halls at different times that year."

If Wendy Baron believed that Sickert made "sketches of sketches" she could not possibly have written the above because the studies could easily have been drawn by Sickert in 1888 or 1889, in his studio, based on his earlier sketches. The fact that she not only says they must have been drawn in 1887 but believes that they were drawn in the music halls (not in a studio) demonstrates, sleekviper, that she does not support your theory at all.

EXAMPLE 3

In a footnote (42) on p.22:

"Queenie Lawrence was not advertised in the music-hall gazettes as engaged at Gatti’s early in June (the drawings are variously dated 4, 6, 7 and 8 June 1888) but it is possible she made an unscheduled appearance, perhaps as a late stand-in for a colleague."


This is an absolute clincher. If Baron believed that the drawings on Sickert's sketches did not relate to the dates they were drawn in the music halls she would not have written that sentence bearing in mind that there would have been an obvious alternative explanation, namely that they were all drawn in Sickert's studio in the period 4-8 June based on earlier in situ sketches. But she does not even raise this as a possibility.

Yes, Wendy Baron says Sickert made hundreds of sketches of Katie and Queenie Lawrence but this means no more than he made lots of sketches in the music halls. After all, she tell us (p.167): "If Sickert was interested in an artiste, he would follow her from hall to hall on the same night."

Sleekviper, you can hold whatever theory you want about Sickert but your first post in this thread gave the impression that you were doing so based on the authority of Wendy Baron, the renowned Sickert expert. I think I have demonstrated conclusively that you do not have that authority but feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 04-04-2017, 01:02 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

David, you're right, but so is Sleekviper.

As a professional artist (mostly portraits) and a long-time admirer of Sickert as an artist, I have a few books and periodicals on his work. Baron, of course, but a couple of others too. I have before me now a catalogue to Tate Liverpool's exhibition "W.R.Sickert - Drawings and Paintings 1890-1942", and also something I found long ago in an antiquarian booksellers, "Image: 7 - A Periodical of the Visual Arts", published by Art and Technics Ltd, Spring 1952, featuring an article on Sickert's Drawings by Gabriel White.

What is clear is that Sickert not only made sketches from life and then used them in his final compositions, he would also go back to the studio, finish them, or rework them completely, or put them aside, or make second versions of them even years later - still just sketches for the sake of sketches. He would take elements of his sketches and combine them with other sketches, or with photographs, or images from media.

So you're now wondering why I say you're right? Well, usually, mostly, very often, you can look at a Sickert sketch made in the music hall, for instance, and the pen or pencil work has a terseness and a brevity that betrays the fact that it was made rapidly from life. When he is reworking things or re-sketching sketches there is often an added heaviness or a deliberateness, as one would expect; a trained eye can usually tell the difference between an exercise in observation and an attempt to craft a significant work using that material.

You're right in that yes, he would indeed make hundreds of first-hand observational drawings of the same artistes, many of them similar, seemingly based on the same moment, but perhaps one is of the same song performed by the same artiste the following night. I think he made so many music hall sketches that we can say with confidence that the overwhelming majority of them must have been made in-situ and once only.

He was absolutely prolific, and chaotic. Dating his sketches with any certainty is a job for a scholar, not for me, I just thought I'd add my 2p worth.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.