Why was sickert so interested in JtR?

[RavenDarkendale]

@Phil H

LOL! I get it, Phil, when it comes to art I am quite the Philistine! (chuckle!)

As I said Sickert's art cannot be viewed as evidence that he was JtR. The good laugh here is that Patrica Cornwell who claims it can be taken as evidence has spent a fortune in collecting Sickert's art! Even to try to prove a point I don't think she would invest so much in his art if it weren't valuable as art.

Take care, mon ami

Darkendale

[Limehouse]

Dale

Many of Michelangelo's later sculptures are unfinished, unpolished, but they remain some of the world's greatest works of art. They do not NEED to be fully hewn or carved, they already say enough.

The impressionists were hated in their day because they did not produce the highly detailed, "finished" canvases of an Ingres - yet today those same paintings are among the most loved and valuable on the planet (and those who appreciate them include you).

Sickert was part of that momentum. Seen in real life the canvases are much more powerful and commanding then in illustrations, I can assure you.

Tastes change and artists change taste. Without experimentation we would have a culture like that af the ancient Egyptians, where art remained stuck in the same idiom for millenia.

I don't like the work of Tracey Emin (the unmade bed etc) but she has created icons that many can relate to. Picassio's modernist works leave me cold, but I can glimpse what he was trying to say. Warhol took icons and made icons of them, he was pointing, I think in film and canvas, to the mundanity of modern culture and "15 minutes of fame".

What I do or do not like in art, I firmly believe, says something about me and nothing about the artist.

Sickert was influential, a new generation built on foundations he helped create. That says much to me.

Colin Wilson (I think in his 1988 book) once commented that no artist had ever been a murderer. Anyone know whether that is true. I'm not sure it can be, but Wilson was regarded once as a major criminologist.

Phil H

Hi Phil

'No artist has ever been a murderer' but a good few murderers have claimed to be artists, among them Adolf Hitler, Peter Sutcliffe and the Kray twins, all of whom have produced work that has been exhibited and even sold.

Agree totally with your analysis of artists and art.

I also wonder how many people who have looked at Sickert's work in relation to Cornwell's claims have looked further than those few paintings of nude women?

Below is a link to a beautiful painting by Sickert showing his talent for capturing light, colour and movement to a considerable extent.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/birminghammag/6892607762/

[Phil H]

Off topic slightly, but can Adolf Hitler be regarded as a murderer?

He undoubtedly instigated mass murder, inspired it, approved of it and was one of the great "monsters" of history. He was responsible for causing international conflict on a vast scale resuting in millions of deaths - but so was Napoleon, and he is not usually categorised as a "murderer".

Some dictators have personally shot those who disagreed with them - Saddam I believe took people out of cabinet meetings. idid Amin too as I recall. But did Hitler? He was present when the SS rounded up the SA leaders in 1934 (Night of the Long Knives) but he didn't shoot Roehm himself.

In Nuremberg terms he was guilty of war crimes, engaging in aggressive war and as Head of State and government of his country had to be overall responsible. But was he a murderer?

Believe me, I am no apologist for Hitler, But I think distinctions are important.

On Hitler as an artist - I don't think he was that bad in an amateur way. he could do watercolours of buildings that are not bad - a bit stiff, lifeless and uninspired (though much art of the period before 1914 seems the same), but many were "knocked off" quickly in Vienna or Munich to earn a few fennigs. He could not draw or paint people at all, which is a bit restrictive for an artist. He certainly wasn't as good as he thought he was, and I don't think deserved to go to art school - they usually look for wider abilities in regard to composition, colour and natural technique as I understand it. Today might be different with a wider range of possible styles and idioms. If someone gave me a Hitler painting without my knowing who it was by (maybe even if I did - as they are valuable now!!) I might well hang it on my wall.

But Adolf made something of a living by his paintings.

But I do take your overall poiont.

Phil H

[Graham]

Colin Wilson (I think in his 1988 book) once commented that no artist had ever been a murderer. Anyone know whether that is true. I'm not sure it can be, but Wilson was regarded once as a major criminologist.

Not sure if this is murder in the accepted sense, i.e., wilful and premeditated, but Caravaggio killed a man in a drunken brawl, and was on the run for a long time, during which period he apparently continued to paint!

Graham

[Phil H]

Funnily enough, Graham, I was discussing this issue with a friend just after writing the post.

He came up with the exact same example - Caravaggio - that you did.

I think the difference is that while Caravaggio killed a man, it was in the context of a duel (however unequal).

Wilson I believe, was thinking of murder in the criminological sense. I have no idea whether his generalisation is well founded or not.

Thanks though for your example, it shows that great minds (you and my other friend) think alike!!

Phil H

[BTCG]

Dale

Many of Michelangelo's later sculptures are unfinished, unpolished, but they remain some of the world's greatest works of art. They do not NEED to be fully hewn or carved, they already say enough.

The impressionists were hated in their day because they did not produce the highly detailed, "finished" canvases of an Ingres - yet today those same paintings are among the most loved and valuable on the planet (and those who appreciate them include you).

Sickert was part of that momentum. Seen in real life the canvases are much more powerful and commanding then in illustrations, I can assure you.

Tastes change and artists change taste. Without experimentation we would have a culture like that af the ancient Egyptians, where art remained stuck in the same idiom for millenia.

I don't like the work of Tracey Emin (the unmade bed etc) but she has created icons that many can relate to. Picassio's modernist works leave me cold, but I can glimpse what he was trying to say. Warhol took icons and made icons of them, he was pointing, I think in film and canvas, to the mundanity of modern culture and "15 minutes of fame".

What I do or do not like in art, I firmly believe, says something about me and nothing about the artist.

Sickert was influential, a new generation built on foundations he helped create. That says much to me.

Colin Wilson (I think in his 1988 book) once commented that no artist had ever been a murderer. Anyone know whether that is true. I'm not sure it can be, but Wilson was regarded once as a major criminologist.

Phil H

Buonarroti unfinished as detailing his process, perhaps. But many were unfinished simply because the patron discontinued payment.

[Mondegreen]

Perhaps he was interested in the case for the same reasons that so many people then and now were and are interested in the case. If an interest in the case was so unusual in those days, I doubt that the press would have bothered to report on it so avidly! Interest in such subjects was probably even less unusual among artists, writers, and other bohemians. Many artists, writers, musicians, have been inspired by crimes and other gruesome events going on around them over the times.

I'm not saying that Sickert wasn't the Ripper, I haven't made up my mind on who I think it was. However, an interest in the case just by itself doesn't immediately stand out to me as evidence.

[John Wheat]

However, an interest in the case just by itself doesn't immediately stand out to me as evidence.

To Mondegreen

I agree an interest in the case is not evidence of anything other than an interest in the case. For that matter writing a couple of Ripper letters is hardly an admission of guilt. Especially considering that most people with even a modicum of knowledge on the Ripper crimes accept that in all likelihood the Ripper didn't write any of the so called Ripper letters.

Cheers John

[Limehouse]

To Mondegreen

I agree an interest in the case is not evidence of anything other than an interest in the case. For that matter writing a couple of Ripper letters is hardly an admission of guilt. Especially considering that most people with even a modicum of knowledge on the Ripper crimes accept that in all likelihood the Ripper didn't write any of the so called Ripper letters.

Cheers John

I agree also and this is an important point when considering any candidate. The police and other organisations received hundreds of letters claiming to be from the murderer. Now, either there were a great many people sending hoax letters, or the murderer wrote them all. The number, variety and tone of the letters make it obvious there were multiple authors and this means there were many people who were not the murderer writing letters claiming they were. So, even if Sickert did write one of two of the letters (and I do not think he did) it does not make his candidacy any stronger than any of the other hoaxers because there really is no other evidence against him.

[Mondegreen]

John Wheat, Limehouse:

I agree with both of you. I don't believe that all of the letters were written by the Ripper (if any were). If Sickert sent any of the Ripper letters, to me it's worth considering the simplest explanation -- that, as he was interested in the case, he ended up sending hoax letters as some kind of unfunny prank, as a test to himself in how genuine he could make himself sound, or some similar reason.