George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"as for van gogh... maybe he liked sitting outside at night in the fresh air? many do (myself for one). maybe it was his muse? but i fail to see him painting someone in the distance in a few moments as they flitted past"

Joel, van Gogh was a man obsessed with painting. He spent all his money (which was not much - he sold two paintings in his lifetime, both of them to his own brother Theo)and all his time painting. He did not take his painting to the night time street because he was an outdoors type of guy who liked fresh air - he did so in search of motives to paint. And of course the people in the painting did not stand still as he painted them. But he would of course not paint people in a spot of the street that he could not see! In the distance the street darkens so much that nothing is discernible there, but that is a loooong way away, is it not? He could see the street clearly enough to make out people and colours for a long distance, that is obvious. It is not about artistic freedom, Joel, it is about simple logic.

The best!
Fisherman

[joelhall]

Joel writes:

"if they were any good why bother inventing brighter ones?"

Sly question, Joel! If the world record on the 100 metres sprint was any good, why would Usain Bolt run faster? Same type of question, but the difference in time is extremely small.
Reasons for swopping, Joel:
Gas is dangerous - it can burn and it can explode.
Electricity is cheaper.
Electricity DOES provide more light. But the rate of the improvement does not affect the light strength of the gas lamps, does it?

"as for the painters, yes they did paint things they couldnt see. people far away wouldnt stop to pose all night for an artist."

Brilliant! But since van Gogh put up his canvas at night, painting away, do you really think that he could not see the houses down the street, or the people walking on it? Do you believe that it would have been pitch dark there, and that he added a city landscape instead of painting what he saw?

Of course not. He saw the street, he saw the houses, he saw people walking in the street, and he painted what he saw. He would of course not give an exact measure of the light available, but a rough estimation of what he could see are easily discernible. If he wanted to paint what he did NOT see, why in Godīs name do you think he put the canvas up outside the café in the middle of the night for, Joel? If he wanted to fantasize away, he never had any need to leave home, did he?

The best,
Fisherman

firstly, you should read my other posts. if electricity is better, why invent a better gas version? because as stated before they were not bright enough. inventions in lighting systems were created to solve problems, not make world records or win races, so the logic fails there im afraid.

as for van gogh... maybe he liked sitting outside at night in the fresh air? many do (myself for one). maybe it was his muse? but i fail to see him painting someone in the distance in a few moments as they flitted past (as the subjects are walking). artists give license to their work, same as writers, film makers, musicians etc.

one thing you can tell, even from his paintings was that he didnt put down a true image of what was in front of him. he added his own character to it.

one thing i can say from his outdoor work though is the amount of light coming from windows (in fact they appear brighter than youd see with electric lighting - something im pretty sure isnt accurate). the cobbles in cafe terrace at night are so light it looks like day time. hes not in a dark street with a few gas lamps. in the starry night, he even paints huge stars and what looks like the sun, as well as a big spiral across the sky... im pretty sure thats not what he saw, unless stars were bigger & the moon yellow in the 19th century.

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"if they were any good why bother inventing brighter ones?"

Sly question, Joel! If the world record on the 100 metres sprint was any good, why would Usain Bolt run faster? Same type of question, but the difference in time is extremely small.
Reasons for swopping, Joel:
Gas is dangerous - it can burn and it can explode.
Electricity is cheaper.
Electricity DOES provide more light. But the rate of the improvement does not affect the light strength of the gas lamps, does it?

"as for the painters, yes they did paint things they couldnt see. people far away wouldnt stop to pose all night for an artist."

Brilliant! But since van Gogh put up his canvas at night, painting away, do you really think that he could not see the houses down the street, or the people walking on it? Do you believe that it would have been pitch dark there, and that he added a city landscape instead of painting what he saw?

Of course not. He saw the street, he saw the houses, he saw people walking in the street, and he painted what he saw. He would of course not give an exact measure of the light available, but a rough estimation of what he could see are easily discernible. If he wanted to paint what he did NOT see, why in Godīs name do you think he put the canvas up outside the café in the middle of the night for, Joel? If he wanted to fantasize away, he never had any need to leave home, did he?

The best,
Fisherman

[joelhall]

the lights were small flames. to see something properly youd have to stand right under them. really the were like mini beacons it would seem, so you could follow the path and see street names under them. if they were any good why bother inventing brighter ones? (which themselves wee less powerful than modern lights and even those dont make it appear day time).

as for the painters, yes they did paint things they couldnt see. people far away wouldnt stop to pose all night for an artist.

for dramatic scenes, artists make sketches of numerous things then compose them to add character.

the likes of the impressionists also painted skies that you never see and all manner of romantic ideals according to what their composition wanted to express, rather than a real scene like a photograph. the scene itself (such as a landscape) sets the frame of the work, the lighting the mood, the details the story.

joel

[Fisherman]

Claire asks:

" Did *someone* try to make a comparison with Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings? Those art movements principally concerned with light?? "

No, Claire, *someone* hasnīt gotten around to the impressionists yet. And I really donīt think that *somebody* has to either, since all artists concern themselves with light, Claire. With you name, you should know that - colour is nothing but reflected light.
What is you explanation to the fact that there are hundreds of nightly scenes on canvases from that time, showing people rather far away, showing colours? Did the artists paint what they did not see? Are the houses down the street in van Goghs painting something he just filled in? If it was totally dark in the background, why did he not paint it that way?

Just a few questions, begging for better answers than what you have come up with so far, Claire.

The best,
Fisherman

[Leighton Young]

it realyl is such a shame because if it was true then that's brilliant but you just can't trust the chap...
i know this is a bit of a tangent thing but it goes for that picture of Netley too.. I often wonder if thats really him and if so how on earth or indeed why on earth did they pick that poor man to be roped into this story..
things like this really annoy me because people wanting to go into this field of study often do it to make them selves look good "heres a puzzle and I'm goign to be the man that solves it" when they cant solve it they make stuff up and it spoils it for the rest of us...

[Ben]

Good point about the lamp-distribution, Claire.

Hi Leighton - The Hutchinson mentioned in that book was almost certainly not the man who signed the witness statement.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

The problem with the Ripper and the Royals is that the theory the book is about, makes everything else suspect, and that is unfortunate.

Mike

[Leighton Young]

what do you think about the statement about Hutchinson that was in the ripper and the royals.. there was a photo of him and his grand son too (I dont know about the full validity of this though) they said that he had a near photographic memory for detail... if the shade of the light changed an objects true colour then surely the viewer would take this into account when they told other people. we'd not go out at night and describe people as having illuminous yellow skin cos they stand under a street lamp ha ha ha

[claire]

The number of lights was not huge...and what you're essentially dealing with is about as much light, per gas lamp, as a pretty average torch. From contemporary photos, it seems there wasn't huge coverage in terms of the actual number of lamps--I may be wrong but it does also seem that there were lamps only on one side of Dorset St (and I'm not knowledgable enough to know whether that was the correct side!).

Finally, we know the weather wasn't great, although the strong winds may have blown away a lot of cloud coverage. The moon was only a couple of days past new, so wouldn't have afforded much, if any, extra light.

Oh. PS. Did *someone* try to make a comparison with Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings? Those art movements principally concerned with light??

[The Good Michael]

Joel,

Right. I was referring to light. Green and red make brown when we are dealing with pigments.

Cheers,

Mike

[joelhall]

Actually green light waves make red look yellow.


Mike

only red light, not red colour. the glass tint would not turn the light green, there would be a very slight tint to it.

in fact ive just tested the theory myself and a red object appears... red.

joel

[The Good Michael]

Actually green light waves make red look yellow.


Mike

[Ben]

True enough, Simon!

The Victorian East End would have been very creepy indeed with the presence of green lights everywhere, although I suspect we're dealing with lamps that pre-dated even those.

All the best,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

And green light would render a red handkerchief as brown/black.

Regards,

Simon