JTR Exhibition in Docklands

[John Bennett]

The relative 'significance' of any item, in the public domain or privately owned, is, with all due respect Dan, for the individual visitor to judge, when they have seen everything in situ. It would be insufferable if one person decided for everyone else, for example, that the 'Dear Boss' letter was more or less significant than a witness statement. But the paying public might well find the former more fascinating to see in the 'flesh' than the latter. One man's 'significant' is the next man's 'totally irrelevant'.

I have to say that personally, I reckoned that the 'Dear Boss' letter was incredibly significant as it gave us the name we all use. And the name that the general public associate with the crimes and the myths and mysteries.

The fact that it was shoved into a corner was somewhat disappointing and maybe more should have been made of it.

That said, I'm bloody glad it was there, along with many other original documents and artefacts.

JB

[Dan Norder]

The relative 'significance' of any item, in the public domain or privately owned, is, with all due respect Dan, for the individual visitor to judge,

I can pretty well state that anything in the exhibition that is of any significance whatsoever is in the public domain, legally, based upon age. Private ownership of physical objects does not by itself make something not be in the public domain.

It would be insufferable if one person decided for everyone else, for example, that the 'Dear Boss' letter was more or less significant than a witness statement.

Both of those (as well as anything from the actual crimes are that general time period) are well in the public domain: free and clear for photo taking, discussion, reprinting and so forth.

But the paying public might well find the former more fascinating to see in the 'flesh' than the latter.

And that was the entire point of the post from which you took the quote you responded to: Museums are for those people who want to see the actual physical objects, and photos of objects that people have the perfect right to post and share in no way takes away from those people who want to see the actual physical objects.

Museums should be museums, not attempt to be intellectual property robber barons denying people the right to share images and information about items that international law says is a moral right to be shared.

[caz]

Hi Adam,

The original 'From Hell' is lost but the original 'Dear Boss' is on show, together with a facsimile of the reverse side of the letter.

People can already see images of the majority of anything significant at the exhibition by picking up one or more Ripper books or looking through the Casebook...

Hi Dan,

It’s a reasonable point, and if it applies to every item Adam has photographed and posted, then I also take the point made by others that putting the images in the one place on this thread may serve to attract more people through the doors.

Not all the items on display, however, have been available previously. The relative 'significance' of any item, in the public domain or privately owned, is, with all due respect Dan, for the individual visitor to judge, when they have seen everything in situ. It would be insufferable if one person decided for everyone else, for example, that the 'Dear Boss' letter was more or less significant than a witness statement. But the paying public might well find the former more fascinating to see in the 'flesh' than the latter. One man's 'significant' is the next man's 'totally irrelevant'.

l still think it would be naughty of anyone if they were to post images (or even full details) of all the items that cannot already be seen in books or anywhere on the net, before the exhibition ends in November. If nothing else it could spoil the fun of those planning to go if they were to stumble across everything here first. A taster is something else entirely.

Love,

Caz
X

[AdamWalsh]

yes, it was good - but arent I correct in thinking that the "Dear Boss" and "From Hell" letters are copies?

[Suzi]

Cheers JM xxx

[jmenges]

The podcast is planning on the episode of July 6th to cover the Docklands exhibition featuring few of our friends who have attended.

Stay tuned for that

All I'll say at the moment is that those who live in the UK (or elsewhere) and are able to go to the exhibit are damned lucky. If I lived there I know I'd go several times, no matter what I've read and seen about it on the boards.

JM

[Suzi]

I think there's been enough advertising for this probably rather good exhibition on this site....! I haven't made it there yet and hope to get there before they remove certain articles!! Off to see the new revival of Warhorse at the NT (30th Sept) with hubby and just MAY make an apres performance visit...failing that will see what's left pre the Oct 1888 meeting me- wont make a comment till then!
Really looking forward to it though...even if I have to mutter under my breath!!!
Hi Mont! x

[Monty]

Im waiting for my man and womans report in the field before I decide.

Monty

[joelhall]

congestion charge, travelling across london and poor advertising. thats why i havent been - mostly cost related.

[Bulldog]

Maybe if the exhibition was at a better known museum the attendance would be greater.

Absolutely. The Museum in Docklands is a bit out of the way. While they host their Jack the Ripper Exhibition, the Victoria and Albert is featuring an exhibition of butterflies. I'd bet anything that the butterflies are drawing larger crowds than the Ripper memorabilia.

And here's another thought, could the tourists have got the impression that the East End is a tough place and are not coming for that reason?

Hopefully not. The Canary Wharf area is a revitalised trendy business centre of glass office towers. The building that houses the Museum is one of the few surviving relics of a bygone age. There is no reason for a visitor to be concerned about their personal safety.

Bulldog

[Brenda]

I can understand both sides of the argument. But there are a lot of people (ahem, ME) who, unless their fortunes change, might not EVER make it to London for a visit and see these artifacts with their own two eyes. So for me, a picture is truly woth a thousand words.

As far as the exhibition making money, I can only tell you that there are many pictures of the Hope Diamond, but nothing can compare to seeing it live in person, and seeing the twinkling kaleidescope of colors it reflects, and the beauty no camera has ever been able to capture. And, with it being a Saturday, maybe 5,000 paying patrons will pass by the case it is displayed in today.

[anna]

Probably because tourists like taking pictures.
Back to square one I think.

[Bulldog]

The exhibition is very quiet on weekdays. It was when I was there and I've spoken to others who went during a weekday and found the same. However, at weekends it is packed. What does that tell you? That tells you that working Londoners and not holidaymakers are mainly the ones going to see it.
PHILIP

Based on what I observed during my visit on Sunday afternoon, 15 June, I have to agree with Philip. It was very crowded, and most of those in attendance seemed to be local people - at least all of the ones that I spoke to were.

The exhibition is listed on the tourist website visitlondon.com, where visiting tourists can can get 2 tickets to the exhibition for the price of 1.

Yet, as I said, most of the attendees on the 15th were Londoners.

Bulldog

[Ally]

And just as the final word on this topic to Ally:

If Stephen thought it was wrong to post them (or similar photos from other exhibitions and events in the past that have been put up without any complaints) then they wouldn't be here anymore. They're still up. Considering the relative ease many people have in getting posts removed (with several examples just in the past couple of weeks), that says a lot.

Hi Dan,

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but, brace yourself, people are allowed to have different opinions than Stephen. Myself included. But you are presuming two things: one, that someone has actually hit the report post button and complained about the photos which has led to Stephen making a conscious decision to allow them to remain, and two, that we can't argue it anyway right up until the time that Stephen says to knock it off. Up until you decided to bring it up, no one was questioning Stephen's "decision" to allow the photos to remain, we are questioning the posters decision to post them. And while Stephen is the first, last and ultimate word on what gets posted or discussed on THIS forum, the principle behind it remains the same: is it right or wrong to post surreptitiously obtained photographs when the exhibit has asked you not to take them in the first place.

Philip,

If photos are taken and enjoyed for personal use, I don't see the harm, it's when they are shared with a wider audience that I think it becomes a naughty. Which is odd, because that's the exact same argument Dan employs when it comes to his event, but rejects when it comes to this one.

[Supe]

Hi all--again,

It is really unfortunate that some things become needlessly personal, but let me try to explain what motivated my initial post that seems to have started this wrangle.

For reasons mentioned previously, I am sensitive to a perception of a major exhibit as being a "work of art," the artistry and creativity lying not in the artifacts themselves, but the process of selecting, arranging and interpreting the displays. And to be fully experienced, an exhibit, like a play, should be seen in its totality.

An analogy might be with the staging of a play by Shakespeare. Surely, the original script now belongs to everyone, but what makes each revival a new work of art is in the staging and the interpretation. And so it is with an exhibit: Many of the objects on display may be quite familiar (even as the basic plots of many of Shakespeare's reworkings of older plays were known to his audiences before they entered the Globe) but the overall setting and arrangement of the familiar is quite unique and constitues, in my mind, a work of art.

And, as I made quite clear at the outset, whatever the legalities involved, I felt it was wrong to display photographs of small and discrete portions of the exhibit because it might well distort the attempted artistry of the exhibit's producers. My opinion, that's all.

And Philip, my post was not prompted because it was a newcomer like Adam. I sent him a PM to that effect, as well as welcoming him to the boards, and I hope he has read it.

Don.