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

[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 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 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

[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!!

[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

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gale,

Did Lautrec ever meet Sickert?

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

Regards,

Simon

[johns]

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

[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........

[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.

[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]

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..........

[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]

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]

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.