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

[Henry Flower]

Oh dear. Gale.... I admit it, your questions had to be avoided because they pointed so clearly to HTL's friend's involvement in the Ripper murders...



Right. Your questions.

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

Er..... honestly don't see your point, but what the hell. No, Stonehenge is an arrangement of stones. There is scholarly debate about what purpose the arrangement served or symbolised. I don't quite see the purpose of the comparison, in all honesty. Are you simply going to list any human artifact from any era whose purpose is not precisely known and extrapolate from that the suggestion that painted scenes of Parisian nightlife must therefore be accepted as probably holding clues to the squalid and very unglamorous murders of prostitutes in a different country, down dirty little back alleys? You're welcome to do that if you wish, but frankly I think it's illogical, ill-informed, subjective, and rather tiresome. We know a sufficient amount about Lautrec, his world, his friends, and his oeuvre to make your comparison absolutely redundant. Bizarre.

Do you really think she held a pose like that while Lautrec sketched her? No way!

Why not!? I don't know, and I rather think you don't know. Or let us put it another way: what is your explanation for her presence or for her pallor? You find it impossible to believe she was sketched in that position by Lautrec. Fine, I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument. What then? Tell me what she is doing there, how he came up with her image, what was the process? What does she mean? Rather than constantly planting little insinuations and ridiculing perfectly commonsense explanations as being insufficiently 'radical', whatever the bleep that means, why don't you tell us??? Actually state something! She didn't hold a pose like that while he sketched her, so.... what, then?

The composition of the picture reveals deliberate arrangement.

Oh, bravo! Find me any picture by any major artist that does not reveal 'deliberate arrangement'! It's what artists do! D'uh!!!! You're not saying anything, Gale. You're stating the frickin obvious and expecting us to take it as evidence of knowledge of the Ripper murders. Yes, it was clearly arranged deliberately and cleverly - because (a) that's how artists work, always? - or (b) he needed to be the latest great artist to hide clues about the Ripper murders in his work?

I mean how did Lautrec himself make an appearance in his own painting?

I dunno Gale, it's just one great mystery innit? The guy was clearly some kind of mysteriously clever artist who arranged his pictures and compositions deliberately and thoughtfully, and humorously, instead of just blowing pigments out of his anus and hoping they landed in some interesting pattern on the canvas.... jeez, this is tiresome old stuff.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

[galexander]

Oh dear. Gale.... I admit it, your questions had to be avoided because they pointed so clearly to HTL's friend's involvement in the Ripper murders...



Right. Your questions.



Er..... honestly don't see your point, but what the hell. No, Stonehenge is an arrangement of stones. There is scholarly debate about what purpose the arrangement served or symbolised. I don't quite see the purpose of the comparison, in all honesty. Are you simply going to list any human artifact from any era whose purpose is not precisely known and extrapolate from that the suggestion that painted scenes of Parisian nightlife must therefore be accepted as probably holding clues to the squalid and very unglamorous murders of prostitutes in a different country, down dirty little back alleys? You're welcome to do that if you wish, but frankly I think it's illogical, ill-informed, subjective, and rather tiresome. We know a sufficient amount about Lautrec, his world, his friends, and his oeuvre to make your comparison absolutely redundant. Bizarre.



Why not!? I don't know, and I rather think you don't know. Or let us put it another way: what is your explanation for her presence or for her pallor? You find it impossible to believe she was sketched in that position by Lautrec. Fine, I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument. What then? Tell me what she is doing there, how he came up with her image, what was the process? What does she mean? Rather than constantly planting little insinuations and ridiculing perfectly commonsense explanations as being insufficiently 'radical', whatever the bleep that means, why don't you tell us??? Actually state something! She didn't hold a pose like that while he sketched her, so.... what, then?



Oh, bravo! Find me any picture by any major artist that does not reveal 'deliberate arrangement'! It's what artists do! D'uh!!!! You're not saying anything, Gale. You're stating the frickin obvious and expecting us to take it as evidence of knowledge of the Ripper murders. Yes, it was clearly arranged deliberately and cleverly - because (a) that's how artists work, always? - or (b) he needed to be the latest great artist to hide clues about the Ripper murders in his work?



I dunno Gale, it's just one great mystery innit? The guy was clearly some kind of mysteriously clever artist who arranged his pictures and compositions deliberately and thoughtfully, and humorously, instead of just blowing pigments out of his anus and hoping they landed in some interesting pattern on the canvas.... jeez, this is tiresome old stuff.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

It seems Henry Flower that I have to spell it out to you because you keep missing the point.

......the suggestion that painted scenes of Parisian nightlife must therefore be accepted as probably holding clues to the squalid and very unglamorous murders of prostitutes in a different country, down dirty little back alleys? We know a sufficient amount about Lautrec, his world, his friends, and his oeuvre to make your comparison absolutely redundant. Bizarre.

It seems you are wearing a pair of extremely rose-tinted spectacles when viewing the life of Lautrec. Get real. Look at the following paintings from the artist:





And yes, these are prostitutes lining up for their routine medical inspection and Lautrec was there to catch the moment.





And this is woman in a brothel plying her trade. Satisfied?

Tell me what she is doing there, how he came up with her image, what was the process? What does she mean? Rather than constantly planting little insinuations and ridiculing perfectly commonsense explanations as being insufficiently 'radical', whatever the bleep that means, why don't you tell us??? Actually state something! She didn't hold a pose like that while he sketched her, so.... what, then?

To put it quite plainly I don't believe the lady in question stood rigid like a statue in the middle of a busy dance hall while Lautrec sketched her. I mean how long could the process have lasted for? 10-15 minutes.........longer......?

You seem to be too absorbed in your own little world Henry Flower to pay any attention at all.

[galexander]

Just a further note on the above. Observe that in both paintings the women have red or ginger hair. Further evidence of an obsession?

And also consider that Lautrec intended to put his work on public display towards the end of the nineteenth century.

And how well do you think that went down? Not very well at all........

[johns]

Amazing stuff... I'm learning so much here.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

Did Lautrec ever meet Sickert?

All things considered, they would have had much to discuss.

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

My own little world.... where subjective ambiguities in paintings aren't taken as clues to famous murders. Yeah, how effing parochial of me, you patronising bore.

Yes, prostitutes in paintings. Big shock!! Lautrec painted prostitutes. Gauguin painted prostitutes. Vincent painted prostitutes - I already knew that, thanks Gale. Many artists of the period did. Likewise many writers focused on prostitutes. Prostitution was a big issue, and many artists and writers saw them as emblematic figures. Vincent, for example, described them as angels of mercy, and figures emblematic of his own outsider status. Hey, perhaps every artist who painted the dull sad lives of prostitutes must have had insider knowledge of the Whitechapel murders! #yawn#

Ooooh. Red hair!!!!! I suggest we immediately investigate every second-generation Pre-Raphaelite. At least those guys were in London at the time. Unlike your guys, Gale.

You haven't said one damned thing that I would dignify with the label 'evidence'. You're not telling me anything I don't already know about Lautrec's work, and none of it has any identifiable connection with the Whitechapel murders. Take this, for example:

And also consider that Lautrec intended to put his work on public display towards the end of the nineteenth century.

And how well do you think that went down? Not very well at all........

So what? What the hell has that to do with the Ripper murders? Apart from yet again stating the bleedin obvious as though we're all retards who knew nothing about art until you condescended to educate us, what the hell has it to do with the Ripper? Nothing, Gale.

Also, you yet again fail to answer a plain question. Maybe you are too wrapped up in your own little world to pay attention:

To put it quite plainly I don't believe the lady in question stood rigid like a statue in the middle of a busy dance hall while Lautrec sketched her. I mean how long could the process have lasted for? 10-15 minutes.........longer......?

SO WHAT???? Tell me then, what WAS the process, and why does it matter? What has it to do with the Whitechapel murders??????? State something, tell us what she IS not what she ISN'T. She wasn't sketched from life - WHAT, then? And why (with reference, perhaps, to the Whitechapel murders of 1888 in London) does it matter?

Incidentally, if you think an initial sketch of her figure would've taken someone like Lautrec longer than five minutes, you know even less about his painting than I thought.

[Limehouse]

Hi Gale,

Did Lautrec ever meet Sickert?

All things considered, they would have had much to discuss.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Yes, they did meet, and Sickert was impressed (excuse the pun) with Lutrec's work and that of Degas. A few years back there was an exhibition of the work of the three (Degas, Sickert and Guaguin) pianters.

Oh no! What have I started! A new conspiracy theory!

Julie

[Harry the Hawker]

It wasn't Sickert, Lautrec, nor yet Vincent van Gogh. It was William Orpen, the Irish-born 'war artist' (even though he was only 10 at the time). I find the evidence contained in this painting irrefutable. Check it one time!
Case closed!!

[Phil Carter]

Hi Simon,

Yes, they did meet, and Sickert was impressed (excuse the pun) with Lutrec's work and that of Degas. A few years back there was an exhibition of the work of the three (Degas, Sickert and Guaguin) pianters.

Oh no! What have I started! A new conspiracy theory!

Julie

Hello Julie,

Gaugin?... oh heavens above... talk about paint a pretty picture! hahaha!

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Simon,

Yes, they did meet, and Sickert was impressed (excuse the pun) with Lutrec's work and that of Degas. A few years back there was an exhibition of the work of the three (Degas, Sickert and Guaguin) pianters.

Oh no! What have I started! A new conspiracy theory!

Julie

Hello Julie,

Have you canvassed this idea?

lol

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Gale,

Did Lautrec ever meet Sickert?

All things considered, they would have had much to discuss.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

"Yes, Sure!" in Norwegian is "Ja, Sikkert!"

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Gale,

Did Lautrec ever meet Sickert?

All things considered, they would have had much to discuss.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

"Yes, Sure!" in Norwegian is "Ja, Sikkert!"

"Totally sure is "helt Sikkert".. and "hero" in Norwegian is "helt"

best wishes

Phil

[Limehouse]

Hello Julie,

Have you canvassed this idea?

lol

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

No, to be honest, my 'art wouldn't be in it! (spoken like a true Londoner!)

Lovely to hear from you.

Julie

[galexander]

Yes, prostitutes in paintings. Big shock!! Lautrec painted prostitutes. Gauguin painted prostitutes. Vincent painted prostitutes - I already knew that, thanks Gale. Many artists of the period did. Likewise many writers focused on prostitutes. Prostitution was a big issue, and many artists and writers saw them as emblematic figures. Vincent, for example, described them as angels of mercy, and figures emblematic of his own outsider status. Hey, perhaps every artist who painted the dull sad lives of prostitutes must have had insider knowledge of the Whitechapel murders! #yawn#

Sorry Henry Flower, I hate to contradict but not all artists painted prostitutes. Only some of them.

In their day the Impressionists (and modern artists in general) were complete outsiders. The leading galleries refused to display their art and the average Impressionist found it hard to even earn a living. Respectable artists did not paint pictures of prostitutes nor did they visit brothels. Call me a snob if you like, that's your business.

Can you imagine the reaction today if some contemporary artist painted pictures of the goings on in a brothel? The reaction would be somewhat mixed to say the least! But can you imagine the reaction to such a subject matter in the nineteenth century........?

The problem is that you are repeating clichés built upon misconceptions built upon further clichés, etc, etc.





Charles Darwin + Billy Graham = Friedrich Nietzsche

[Henry Flower]

And you are once again telling me lots of stuff about art that I already know, and offering absolutely NOTHING in the way of evidence concerning the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

Your standard modus operandi, it seems.

Oh no - my mistake - you also falsely attributed to me the assertion that all artists painted prostitutes, so that you can cleverly contradict my error. But even that straw-man argument has absolutely nothing to do with the murders. If Lautrec were the ONLY painter to have painted prostitutes it still wouldn't count as evidence that a former friend of his had therefore been Jack the Ripper, just as a female figure with a greenish pallor does not constitute evidence of the same.

How about some evidence placing the doctor in Whitechapel on the dates of the murders? That might get us somewhere. But already I feel a sense of fatigue, we've been here so many times, asking for evidence instead of intuitions based on paintings, from people who feel ghostly presences in art galleries and find something vaguely 'Ripperish' in paintings of a certain artist, be it Lautrec, Sickert, or most bizarrely Vincent. It just doesn't wash, galexander, and no amount of remedial-class art-historical context is going to make it wash.