Was the Artist Henri de Toulouse Lautrec Implicated in the Killings?

[galexander]

In the next painting, "Au Moulin Rouge" (the previous image was called "Au Bal du Moulin de la Galette" by the way), we see a similar cryptic theme:





The female figure in the foreground right, again, has an unusual green pallor and her eyes have blank and distanced look about them.

Again we see a mysterious red-head seated at the table with her back to us.

Immediately above her head we see the figures of Lautrec and his cousin Gabriel Tapié de Céleyran who was also a doctor.

As in the previous painting the artist uses the effect of perspective in the form of a wooden railing travelling diagonally across the painting to draw your attention directly into the picture.

But what was the artist trying to say exactly by using such an effect? Was he trying to portray some hidden meaning?

[lynn cates]

symbolism

Hello Gale. I'm delighted to see these paintings and your discussion of symbolism. We spend a great deal of time in my Humanities classes asking just these sorts of questions.

"We see a mysterious red-head with her back to us and it isn't exactly clear who she is."

Well, she does have red hair. But why is she mysterious? And I daresay it is not clear whom any of them are.

"A male figure, almost looking like a detective, peers over her shoulder."

I wonder what precisely a detective looked like? The point in being a detective, if I recall properly, is NOT to look like anyone special--most of all, a detective.

"The female in the foreground on the left has a strange green pallor to her face and she is looking with some concern at what is happening in the top right-hand corner of the picture."

Similar to "The Moulin Rouge" or something like that?

"A gendarme is having words with a gentleman in a top hat."

Very possibly so.

"Who is this figure in the top hat and what has he done wrong exactly?"

Not clear whom he is. For the second part, why assume he has done ANYTHING wrong? What precludes a friendly conversation?

Incidentally, for some REAL fun, try De Chirico's, "Mystery and Melancholy of a Street."

Cheers.
LC

[Limehouse]

The 'strange, green pallor' could have been caused by the type of lighting in the room.

To me, this is a group of people enjoying a jolly social life. It is in the style of the post-impressionists and Lutrec obviously liked red-heads.


No hidden meanings. No ripper lurking in the corner. Just lovely paintings.

[galexander]

Hello Gale. I'm delighted to see these paintings and your discussion of symbolism. We spend a great deal of time in my Humanities classes asking just these sorts of questions.

"We see a mysterious red-head with her back to us and it isn't exactly clear who she is."

Well, she does have red hair. But why is she mysterious? And I daresay it is not clear whom any of them are.

"A male figure, almost looking like a detective, peers over her shoulder."

I wonder what precisely a detective looked like? The point in being a detective, if I recall properly, is NOT to look like anyone special--most of all, a detective.

"The female in the foreground on the left has a strange green pallor to her face and she is looking with some concern at what is happening in the top right-hand corner of the picture."

Similar to "The Moulin Rouge" or something like that?

"A gendarme is having words with a gentleman in a top hat."

Very possibly so.

"Who is this figure in the top hat and what has he done wrong exactly?"

Not clear whom he is. For the second part, why assume he has done ANYTHING wrong? What precludes a friendly conversation?

Incidentally, for some REAL fun, try De Chirico's, "Mystery and Melancholy of a Street."

Cheers.
LC

I'm afraid I'm going to have to debunk your own rather predictable debunk here.

For a start the sort of stuff you'd discuss in schoolroom Humanities classes is not likely to be that radical is it, let's face it.

Not clear whom he is. For the second part, why assume he has done ANYTHING wrong? What precludes a friendly conversation?

And why would a gendarme in full uniform go into a dance hall just for a friendly conversation? It's like a policeman today going into a nightclub in full uniform just for a friendly chat. I don't think so.

In "Au Bal du Moulin de la Galette" there is a definite air of tension among the figures seated in the foreground. They are sat apart from the dancers like wall flowers and look rather forlorn. And what is the cause of this tension? The presence of the gendarme could answer this question and also explain why we can't see the face of the enigmatic red-headed lady.

The problem is that you know nothing of symbolism, a frequently used method among artists.

[galexander]

The 'strange, green pallor' could have been caused by the type of lighting in the room.

To me, this is a group of people enjoying a jolly social life. It is in the style of the post-impressionists and Lutrec obviously liked red-heads.


No hidden meanings. No ripper lurking in the corner. Just lovely paintings.

Again what a predictable response.

Presumably you are saying that there has never been any concealed imagery in any artwork anywhere, ever and you know this for a fact!

So the following was caused by the ambient lighting used in the room? And presumably the same lighting produced the distant, vacant stare we see in the subject as well?

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Gale. Thanks. Not sure why you adopt a hostile tone. I was merely asking questions about your observations. Debunk?

"For a start the sort of stuff you'd discuss in schoolroom Humanities classes is not likely to be that radical is it, let's face it?"

Radical? What on earth has that to do with anything?

"And why would a gendarme in full uniform come into a dance hall just for a friendly conversation?"

We have no idea WHY he came in. Perhaps he is getting off duty and is thirsty.

"It's like a policeman today going into a nightclub in full uniform just for a friendly chat. I don't think so."

What one comes in for and what one does after being in are two different things.

"In "Au Bal du Moulin de la Galette" there is a definite air of tension among the figures seated in the foreground. They are sat apart from the dancers like wall flowers and look rather forlorn. And what is the cause of this tension?"

What tension? This is your subjective projection.

"The presence of the gendarme could answer this question and also explain why we can't see the face of the enigmatic red-headed lady."

We can't see her face because it is turned away from us. Enigmatic? Who are ANY of these figures? And who are the figures in Monet's canvas by roughly the same name? Sure, it looks like they are dancing, eating pancakes and discussing, but perhaps they are terrorists bent on bombing Paris?

"The problem is that you know nothing of Symbolism, a frequently used method among artists."

Perhaps so, but I do that for a living. At which university do you teach?

Since you choose not to discuss and answer the gentle questions put to you, I shall trouble you no further.

Cheers.
LC

[galexander]

Hello Gale. Thanks. Not sure why you adopt a hostile tone. I was merely asking questions about your observations. Debunk?

"For a start the sort of stuff you'd discuss in schoolroom Humanities classes is not likely to be that radical is it, let's face it?"

Radical? What on earth has that to do with anything?

"And why would a gendarme in full uniform come into a dance hall just for a friendly conversation?"

We have no idea WHY he came in. Perhaps he is getting off duty and is thirsty.

"It's like a policeman today going into a nightclub in full uniform just for a friendly chat. I don't think so."

What one comes in for and what one does after being in are two different things.

"In "Au Bal du Moulin de la Galette" there is a definite air of tension among the figures seated in the foreground. They are sat apart from the dancers like wall flowers and look rather forlorn. And what is the cause of this tension?"

What tension? This is your subjective projection.

"The presence of the gendarme could answer this question and also explain why we can't see the face of the enigmatic red-headed lady."

We can't see her face because it is turned away from us. Enigmatic? Who are ANY of these figures? And who are the figures in Monet's canvas by roughly the same name? Sure, it looks like they are dancing, eating pancakes and discussing, but perhaps they are terrorists bent on bombing Paris?

"The problem is that you know nothing of Symbolism, a frequently used method among artists."

Perhaps so, but I do that for a living. At which university do you teach?

Since you choose not to discuss and answer the gentle questions put to you, I shall trouble you no further.

Cheers.
LC

I don't believe I used a hostile tone at all, I simply didn't agree with what you were saying. Or is that not allowed?

Just because you teach at school or are a university lecturer doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with everything you are saying does it?

Sure, it looks like they are dancing, eating pancakes and discussing, but perhaps they are terrorists bent on bombing Paris?

I'm not sure if that was just humour or not but funnily enough there was a problem with that sort of thing in Paris at the time.

If I point out there are indications of hidden symbolism in a painting and present a case to support that, and you say that you can't see it, then what does that prove exactly?

[Limehouse]

Again what a predictable response.

Presumably you are saying that there has never been any concealed imagery in any artwork anywhere, ever and you know this for a fact!

So the following was caused by the ambient lighting used in the room? And presumably the same lighting produced the distant, vacant stare we see in the subject as well?

Predictable response? You ask us to respond to the comments you made concerning the two paintings you posted, and when we comment with our opinions you say they are predictable! What did you expect? Do you want me to write 'Well, actually, you have a point. The red head is very mysterious and is obviously being lined up as the next victim. And those people in the foreground are looking so shocked because the man in the top hat, who is, of course, Jack the Ripper, is finally going to face the music because that gendarme has rumbled him. ?

Do you know what? I am not going to get into a slanging match. I'm tired of people who have looked at a few paintings, and worked out that the painter was alive in 1888, coming on this site and proclaiming that this or that artist was in fact Jack and it's all there in their art work. It's all piffle and I'm off to do something more worthwhile with my time.

[galexander]

I'm tired of people who have looked at a few paintings, and worked out that the painter was alive in 1888, coming on this site and proclaiming that this or that artist was in fact Jack and it's all there in their art work. It's all piffle and I'm off to do something more worthwhile with my time.

Oh come on Limehouse.

The circumstantial evidence I have presented here is far more compelling than that surely?

You are not doing my theory justice but are taking an extreme reactionary stance.........

Roget's Thesaurus:

reactionary


adjective
Vehemently, often fanatically opposing progress or reform: die-hard, mossbacked, ultraconservative. See politics.

Clinging to obsolete ideas: backward, conservative, unprogressive. See politics.

noun
A person who vehemently, often fanatically opposes progress and favors return to a previous condition: die-hard, mossback, ultraconservative. See politics.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/reactionary#ixzz1u5oSbsYV

[Beowulf]

In the next painting, "Au Moulin Rouge" (the previous image was called "Au Bal du Moulin de la Galette" by the way), we see a similar cryptic theme:

The female figure in the foreground right, again, has an unusual green pallor and her eyes have blank and distanced look about them.

Who is the girl with the blue face? And all those other people in "Moulin Rouge" ?

according to a man who became the executor of Lautrec's estate bestowed upon him by Lautrec's father.....

"Before being purchased for the Chicago museum, the painting had been owned by Parisian collectors and art galleries since 1902, the year following Lautrec's death.

It was ceded, along with other works in Lautrec's estate, to Maurice Joyant, codirector of the Galerie Manzi-Joyant in Paris and executor of the estate, by
Lautrec's father, Count Alphonse de Toulouse-Lautrec, "with all my heart and without regret ... [because] you believe in his work more than I do and because you have been proven right."

Joyant then apparently sold the painting to his partner, Manzi. Also in 190 At the Moulin Rouge seems to have been included among the group of some fifty works by Lautrec exhibited at the April Salon des Independants.

However, after that exhibition, the painting was not displayed in public again
until 1914, when the Galerie Manzi-Joyant held a retrospective exhibition.

Although it may have been available in the intervening years at the Galerie Manzi-Joyant, for twelve years the painting essentially disappeared from public view. The 1914 exhibition was followed by another decade during which At the Moulin Rouge was again largely unseen."

"...in Joyant's biography and monograph on Toulouse-Lautrec, which in 1926established authoritatively the compass and the chronology of Lautrec's works, he discussed the Art Institute painting as if it had been an essential component of the 1892 painting suite he had exhibited in 1893..."

"Joyant categorically stated: "This painting is one of the
most important of all works by Lautrec. . . . It serves as the summation of all his studies of the Moulin Rouge."

He went on to identify the persons seen in At the Moulin Rouge.

"Seated around the table, from left to right, are M. Edouard Dujardin[ a Symbolist poet, critic, and dramatist associated with the Revue Wagneriennaen d the Revue Independante], La Macarona[ a dancer], Paul Sescau[ a professionalp hotographer], Maurice Guibert [a proprietor of the vineyard of Mohte t Chandonc hampagne]i;n the foregroundt on the
right,

... seen full-face: Mile. Nelly C. [a name otherwise unknown; in the central part: [the dancer] La Goulue adjusting her hair and silhouettes of Lautrec's cousin Dr.G. Tapie de Celeyran, and of Toulouse Lautrec himself wearing his bowler hat".

The girl in the blue face identified as Nelly C, unknown, by Maurice Joyant, codirector of the Galerie Manzi-Joyant in Paris and executor of the estate.


































http://shanghaijournal.squarespace.com/storage/Heller-lautrec's%20moulin%20rouge.pdf

[Cogidubnus]

The female figure in the foreground right, again, has an unusual green pallor and her eyes have blank and distanced look about them.

I'm not surprised she's spaced out...you want imagery? Well check out the Green Fairy, and the Great Binge and you'll really learn something about the scene the artist is portraying...and it isn't Whitechapel!

Dave

[Henry Flower]

Gale, talking of 'reactionary' or 'predictable' nonsense, please do try to avoid rubbish such as the following, if you're going to continue to pass yourself off as someone with a keener, more 'radical' insight into painting processes than the rest of us:

As in the previous painting the artist uses the effect of perspective in the form of a wooden railing travelling diagonally across the painting to draw your attention directly into the picture.

This is very trite and predictable, very art-school. And rubbish on several levels: for a start, you don't mean 'the picture', you mean 'the area of primary interest' - after all, the railing itself is part of 'the picture'. As a painter by profession, please allow me to tell you that the purpose of the diagonal railing is not to draw your attention 'into the picture', but to stop it leaving too easily. Nobody starts off by looking at the bottom edge of the painting, seeing the railing, wondering where it leads, following it with the eye and then discovering - oh! some people having a drink and a chat! Thank God for that railing drawing me into the picture or I would never have noticed them! Your attention is 'drawn into the picture' by looking at the picture. The problem that painters wrestle with is how to 'enclose' the composition in such a way that the focus is maintained where we want it to be, that the corners (always a difficult element) don't simply allow the track of the eye to fall away.

The female figure at the right fulfills a similar purpose, buffering the right hand edge of the composition. Regarding her, if you were asked to imagine how a Post-Impressionist might choose to paint a female face half submerged in shadow, in a gas-lit interior, in an age when women in such establishments routinely wore pale face powder, I think it might just be something very much like what we see here. There is no mystery, she is not dead. In fact she seems quite lively, invested with humour and character, especially the way she tilts her head slightly to make sure she's in the picture, meeting our gaze. Needless to say, there is nothing here that suggests any link to the Whitechapel murders of 1888, unless you're predisposed to find one.

[galexander]

Gale, talking of 'reactionary' or 'predictable' nonsense, please do try to avoid rubbish such as the following, if you're going to continue to pass yourself off as someone with a keener, more 'radical' insight into painting processes than the rest of us:



This is very trite and predictable, very art-school. And rubbish on several levels: for a start, you don't mean 'the picture', you mean 'the area of primary interest' - after all, the railing itself is part of 'the picture'. As a painter by profession, please allow me to tell you that the purpose of the diagonal railing is not to draw your attention 'into the picture', but to stop it leaving too easily. Nobody starts off by looking at the bottom edge of the painting, seeing the railing, wondering where it leads, following it with the eye and then discovering - oh! some people having a drink and a chat! Thank God for that railing drawing me into the picture or I would never have noticed them! Your attention is 'drawn into the picture' by looking at the picture. The problem that painters wrestle with is how to 'enclose' the composition in such a way that the focus is maintained where we want it to be, that the corners (always a difficult element) don't simply allow the track of the eye to fall away.

The female figure at the right fulfills a similar purpose, buffering the right hand edge of the composition. Regarding her, if you were asked to imagine how a Post-Impressionist might choose to paint a female face half submerged in shadow, in a gas-lit interior, in an age when women in such establishments routinely wore pale face powder, I think it might just be something very much like what we see here. There is no mystery, she is not dead. In fact she seems quite lively, invested with humour and character, especially the way she tilts her head slightly to make sure she's in the picture, meeting our gaze. Needless to say, there is nothing here that suggests any link to the Whitechapel murders of 1888, unless you're predisposed to find one.

And I suppose Stonehenge is just a pile of stones and there is no mystery there either...........

And the following is inaccurate as well:

In fact she seems quite lively, invested with humour and character, especially the way she tilts her head slightly to make sure she's in the picture, meeting our gaze.

Do you really think she held a pose like that while Lautrec sketched her? No way! The composition of the picture reveals deliberate arrangement. I mean how did Lautrec himself make an appearance in his own painting?

Needless to say, there is nothing here that suggests any link to the Whitechapel murders of 1888, unless you're predisposed to find one.

And I suppose you're predisposed not to find one.........

[Henry Flower]

And I suppose Stonehenge is just a pile of stones and there is no mystery there either...........

Try to find a comparison that makes some sense. Try comparing like with like. You're sounding rather silly.

Do you really think she held a pose like that while Lautrec sketched her? No way! The composition of the picture reveals deliberate arrangement. I mean how did Lautrec himself make an appearance in his own painting?

Rather breathless jumble of different questions there. I'll come back when you've asked something coherent.

[galexander]

And I suppose Stonehenge is just a pile of stones and there is no mystery there either...........

Try to find a comparison that makes some sense. Try comparing like with like. You're sounding rather silly.

Do you really think she held a pose like that while Lautrec sketched her? No way! The composition of the picture reveals deliberate arrangement. I mean how did Lautrec himself make an appearance in his own painting?

Rather breathless jumble of different questions there. I'll come back when you've asked something coherent.

How cleverly you avoided each of my questions..........