Sickert's "Mrs. Barrett"

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Not being an art buff, I allowed my untrained eye to wander... the painting of Mrs Barret, or Blackmail.. (supposedly Mary Kelly)...look at the lady's right cheek, at the mark, or blob, or scar... then look at the sketch of Hutch on the other thread, and look at the close up, at the large, deliberate mark on "Mary's" right cheek. Coincidence...but how strange...

just an observation.

best wishes

Phil

[ghoulstonstreet]

Pardon me for interrupting, as I have not been reading this thread, but i just listened to the Conspiracy Ago Go rippercast. I have a question. Has it ever been solidly established that Joseph Gorman Sickert was in fact Walter Sickert's son? Or does he simply have the same name - no relation, or just claimed to be named Sickert etc. Thanks

[Sam Flynn]

Hello GS,

No proof has ever been put forward to confirm Gorman's claim that was related to Sickert, nor indeed that he was "a" Sickert at all.

[DVV]

That's because his body hasn't yet been sent to Bower, Sam.
But wait.

Amitiés,
David

[ghoulstonstreet]

I can't say I'm surprised. But I wonder what happens when you try to do a geneaological search on Joesph Sickert. I would expect either a yay or nay.

[Ausgirl]

I have no opinion yet of whether Sickert (really, though, doesn't he have the name for it) was or was not JTR.

But there -are- some really interesting things about one of his paintings:

1.


This woman's face is thin and angular - note the jutting cheekbone. Her eye is cold and spiteful, her lips pressed together; altogether it's expression of loathing. Her hair is in shadow but seems to be a dark blonde and styled.


2.

This woman is heavyset. Note the plumpnesss of her cheek. Her eye is almost startled. She appears older, note the wrinkles in her neck. Her nose is thicker, less angular. Her hair is dark and curly and unstyled. I'm not sure about the marks on her lips - perhaps they're cuts or scars.

3.

Here's what's reflected in the mirror: a man in a tall hat lurks far in the background. He's not dissimilar to later portraits of Sickert himself. I have no idea what the crumpled white thing is, but it seems to be sitting on a bed or sofa.

4.

Beside the mirror is an odd shadow. It resembles a man in a top hat and coat.

5.

Under that shadowy figure is a smaller one - a little, bald man in glasses peeking out from behind the mirror.


And here's the full painting again:



It took me a while to figure out what was so discomfiting about this picture - rather than a simple, single portrait it is a crowded, secretive and ominous scene. The split face of the woman is not unusual asymmetry of that kind is a sort of submlinal trigger - Da Vinci did it with Mona Lisa, for example, possibly to increase her sense of mystery. Here, it it's just disturbing.

Note also the expanses of dark/murky grey light on the wall either side of the woman. He's a clever guy, this Sickert.


(why can't I get rid of that image at the bottom...?)

[Limehouse]

Hi Ausgirl

Do not forget that lots of men would have been wearing top hats when Sickert was painting. We are only wary of top hats because of the popular 'myth' that links them to the ripper killings but they really would have been a common sight to Sickert.

Not all of Sickert's paintings are disturbing - have you seen any of those he painted in France?

Finally - Sickert would have had numerous influences on his work and when it comes to images of women it is all too easy to assume he paints victims (because of his association as a suspect but also because of work such as The Camden Town Murder or What Shall We Do For The Rent?) but he could equally have been painting women of strength - women with secrets - women who evaded the social norms of the time - and these themes were almost certainly reflected in his work.

[prowling cat]

Hello Ausgirl, Fascinating images.
Although I am not saying the weren't drawn on purporse, I think one must recognise that we have an innate tendency to "recognise" faces or shapes in patterns, clouds,or even cookies, which I think is technically called pareidolia.
Nevertheless, congratulations for your thorough work, it really is impressive.
I'd love to see you examining more of Sickert's picture.
whatever that migh imply, or not, on his fascination with the JTR murders.

[The Grave Maurice]

If you are in doubt concerning Sickert's involvement, Aus, you might want to have a look at Matthew Sturgis's book Walter Sickert: A Life (HarperCollins, 2005). It certainly convinced me that Sickert had no opportunity to commit several of the murders simply because of the time and distance involved in his getting back to London. As to what you see in his paintings, it strikes me as being one of those Rorschach thingies: one sees what one is inclined to see.

[Ausgirl]

Limehouse, cat, Maurice - I really don't think Sickert was JTR. I think he -was- rather obsessed with the crimes, and with crime in general, particularly later in life.

Limehouse, there's a few top hat images scattered through his paintings, often more an allusion as it is here - vague shadows and shapes, but it -is- present, a recurring motif like the red scarf-shape and several other things. I am inclined to think this is less a clue he was the Ripper himself than a clever painter including informed references. And yes, he did a lot of other paintings which are quite lovely, I do enjoy him as an artist in general.
'
cat, Maurice - I also studied art, and many artists do include subliminal methods to manipulate the eye, and do include subtle shapes and allusions that serve either to influence the thoughts/mood of the viewer and/or pass along a 'message' - like a form of code - on a specific topic, via imagery. It's nothing Dan Brownish (though Da Vinci used it all the time) or even at all unusual . Many of the great masters did the same.

Looking at this as an artist, I can see no reason for his laying down the paint in the way it is laid down in the two top hat images. There's no doubt in my mind that these are quite deliberate, as is the employment of the asymmetrical/dual face - the two halves have very little in common with one another at all, and I cannot see them as belonging to the same woman, unless she possessed some sort of deformity that gave the hemispheres of her skull two different strictures, and allowed her to put fat down on only one side of her face, etc. The only 'Rorschach blot' I suspected there was the weird little face at the bottom of the 'top hat' shadow. But looking at it, there is -absolutely no- reason for that patch of non-shadow to be there, and it does look rather uncannily like the face of a little bald man, in spectacles.

That the little man appears to be gloating out of a Ripper-esque, top-hatted shadow seems a bit more than coincidental.

The other thing to consider, if course, is that Sickert himself was fond of a top hat. Perhaps it's him and not the Ripper being alluded to. Overall, the painting succeeds in creating the kind of discomfort Sickert was aiming for in many of these paintings, and perhaps that alone was the entire point.

And thanks - I'd rather like to look at a few more in this way.

[Ausgirl]

Okay, here's another, from the painting titled, not at all subtly, "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom". It's a murky, disturbing picture, in which it's hard to make out anything at all. Framed quite clearly at the focal point of the painting is what is perhaps a bed-end, before which stands an incredibly fascinating figure.

It appears to be a woman, in black, wearing a large hat and a rather stylised scarlet scarf. The figure is malevolent in all regards, and appears to be holding what isn't but -is implied to - be a very long knife.

However, the woman-ish shape of the figure, when the 'light' is considered, seems to change shape and become a little ambiguous. Woman, or man standing amid strange, deep shadows? Not an accident, I think. He employed the same trick in 'The Journal', where the woman seems to be reading the paper that is - when perspective is considered- actually lying under her head and arm, which in turns leads to an entirely different - and ominous - POV on the painting.

There's more than a few really disturbing interpretations I could put on this - but again, in the end, Sickert succeeds in creating a sense of unease in the viewer via the arrangement in general - the darkness, the basement-like feel of the rest of the painting, the figure itself and the stab-like strokes of 'light' (so violent that they are hard to correlate with light) surrounding the figure.

Once more, I am wholly impressed with his skill as a painter.

[Brenda]

Hi Ausgirl,
I too have noticed the discrepancy of the faces in "Mrs. Barrett". I have wondered about the use of light on her face and whether Sickert is trying to demonstrate the dual personality of Mrs. Barrett (whoever she was). Her light side, the face she shows to the world, is young, sweet, though damaged (what you describe as a "jutting cheekbone", I see it more as a scar). Her dark side, what she tries to hide, is a wicked old shrew. The top hat shadow man is behind the shrew, that is the side he wants dead.
What do you think about that interpretation? Too simplistic?

"Jack the Ripper's Bedroom" is just beyond me, it's too dark and my eyesight is terrible. I'd love to see that one in person.

p.s. Also in the "crumpled white thing"...I can see an image of a man also...the mouth of the thing looks like a hat...a policeman's hat? Kind of interesting.

Also the "white thing's " body appears to be made of guts. Ewww!

I've edited this like 5 times, I'm stopping now.

[Ausgirl]

Brenda- another serial editor! I am not alone, then.

I've been wary of making too much interpretation of what I see, rather than just presenting what's feasibly there, for the moment. Mainly to keep my posts from sliding into too much blather; there's enough to say about his treatment of the subjects and possible intentions in creating a specific mood and POV for the viewer, for the moment.

Others have pointed out that Sickert, in many of the paintings depicting prostitutes, uses anomalous strokes of paint (anomalous because they don't match the way light and dark ought to behave in a painting) around the areas of mutilation in the Jack victims. The cheekbone area you pointed out has lines like that, sharp-looking strokes of whitish paint that imply scars or lines of dissection. It could be fairly said, though, that the effect was simply to create a more angular look, perhaps to contrast further with the roundness and darkness of the other side.

One reviewer of his Venice paintings, where he began to paint the faceless prostitutes that would recur in his work from then on, said they were, "not so much narratives as puzzles, inviting the viewer to work out what he is looking at." And with that, I must concur.

The real Mrs. Barrett was apparently his charwoman, whom he had model for quite a few portraits. It's interesting that you note the top hat images being on the right, darker side. I can't speak for his intention, but it does add to the sense of "duality of nature" that seems to be the theme of the painting.

I think it's safe to say that Sickert wanted not just a degree of fame for his work, but notoriety. He challenges so many of the artistic norms of his day that he is quite the rebel, and yet pulls it off due to sheer skill. A daring painter, indeed, who liked to shock and puzzle his audience (his paintings are disturbing, even in this age where media-spun serial killers are a dime a dozen, no mean feat).

I've been reading the bog posts of Felicity Lowde, which in themselves are interesting, but in which are some much better reproductions of some of the Mrs. Barrett paintings than are presented elsewhere. (Is this blog discussed anywhere on Casebook? If there's a thread, I'd not mind reading it).

Anyway, that's where I found this reproduction of the following "Mrs. Barrett", who far more resembles the right side of the other than the left, particularly the facial shape and eyes:



Who does the left side resemble, then? Not this woman, I think.

[prowling cat]

sorry ausgirl

Hello Ausgirl, sorry, didn't get around to reading your post last night, I'm sorry I gave you the impression I thought you believed Sickert was JTR.
Didn't mean to, and the man in the mirror is certainly there, I'm not too sure about the homunculus with the spectacles, but the top headed shadow of course would be a way of projecting him (Sickert?) still further in the room. I haven't studied art, but I recall the use of looking glasses to paint the painter, so to speak, has a long tradition, or the opposite, as in Velasquéz' las meninas. Can't remember, there's a famous engagement picture with the artist in a convex mirror in the background, isn't there?
Mine was a general sort of remark, keep the good work up, but.. could you please show me how the figure in JTR's bedroom picture is placed, I can make neither head nor tails of it, it actually looks headless to me. A clear case of not seeing enough if there ever was one.
Cheers,
Cat

[Ausgirl]

cat - sorry, I really should have included the entire picture as well:



Yes, my inner jury remains out on the little bald man, but the two hat shapes seem quite clear, and considering his obvious interest in the case and that the shapes appear quite deliberate and are not otherwise explicable in terms of shadows or reflections, I feel pretty confident in saying they were indeed deliberate inclusions.

I agree with you on this particular picture - the figure is quite hard to make out, and I thought too it was headless at first. I think it has a head, because it -must- have one (mustn't it?) above the scarf line - which could be an error of presumption on my part. But the light strokes do slim the figure down from the bulk of the shadow, which I'm guessing was also a deliberate trick of the eye. Sickert studied under Whistler and Degas; he knew -exactly- what he was doing and I wouldn't presume to say that any stroke of pen or paint was not wholly deliberate.

Sickert used a great many windows, mirrors and framed pictures in his 'murder paintings' and others besides - sometimes several in the same picture - and often these lead not only to a sense of greater viewer 'involvement' in the scene, but to tantalising glimpses that may or may not hint toward something or other... he really did enjoy presenting a puzzle to the viewer, I think. For example, in "Lazarus breaks his fast" there's a window behind the seated figure in which may or may not be a hatted figure peeking through.

Cornwell's obvious faults aside, I really can see how she came to feel so strongly that Sickert had some sort of personal involvement in the Whitechapel murders. But I think she didn't take into account what a terrible stirrer he was, nor the accounts of the models and students who stated that he would often "get into character" while painting - and not only for those concerning JTR. Actors will often do the same thing, and Sickert was an actor before he took up painting seriously. Perhaps to some degree he employed what is called 'method acting' these days, where an actor playing a drunken bum will, for sheer example, go live on the streets with hobos for a week to get a better 'feel' for his character. As a poet who has used analogous methods to get a feel for a particular 'voice' in a poem (okay, not so far as living as a hobo or anything, to be clear ) that is unlike my own, I can see how that sort of preparation could translate from acting to painting, and also prove quite useful.

Oh - here's something relevant to Sickert enjoying puzzling tricks of the eye, (and messing with people's heads):



The note at the bottom reads: "look at this with your eyes half shut".

But why? I've squinted at the damn thing for an hour, and cannot see why he'd ask such a thing, even when consciously looking for "Rorschach blots".

Edit: of course, he may have just said it as a means of getting the recipient to see it with the lines smoothed out, as happens with a slight blur.