Sickert's "Mrs. Barrett"

[Celesta]

Hi all,

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the real titles of some of these paintings! If we go back to the very first painting posted, apparently called Mrs Barrett, with the alternative title Blackmail, I have given an interpretation of what the possible motives of the painting are, based on Paul's question to me.

The rather nice portrait of the lady in the pink blouse posted by Celesta seems to be the same lady. Unlike the first painting, in which I can detect a hint of triumph in her glance, this is a relaxed and comfortable sitting, with no hint of malice or murder evidentI

The rather sweet but dark-looking portrait of a lady/girl in a hat looks very like the style of Lautrec.

The sketch, taken from the blog, seems to be a crime scene sketch made by a police artist of the Kelly murder. It does not resemble any Sickert painting that I have seen.

Perhaps it would be interesting to study the pre-murders paintings of Sickert to see what can be detected? I am quite familiar with his work, but will use the link provided by a previous poster to examine his work closely.

Finally, I wonder if many people have seen Sickert's work in a gallery, placed side by side with contemproary works of the time? I saw his work alongside other Victorian painters and sketchers of nudes and honestly, beside some of them, Sickert looked positively coy.

His work really does take on a different hue when you see it for real.

LH,

I was wondering about this very thing, that I've put in bold above. There is often a vast difference between a print of a painting and the reality of it. When it comes down to it, prints are not very good much of the time. I'm an art-lover, was something of an artist myself before my eyes gave out, and have been going to museums, since I became an adult, but I don't think I have ever seen a work by Sickert. There have been some very good Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, Neo-Impressionist, etc., exhibits here, and I don't recall a single thing by him. Cornwell bought over 30 of his paintings, I understand. Some of them have been housed here in the USA. Frankly, I think they need to go back to the British people.

Frankly, Sickert fits into the styles of his age. I say styles because artists change with the times and with new influences.

I agree about the confusion about the titles, but I think it may have something to do with a continuum among a small group of paintings relating to this Barrett woman.

[Dan Norder]

Do you know who and when?

A search for "Mary Kelly" on Google says it was Julie Roberts, 2001.

[Limehouse]

Hello, all.

I asked this question of Sarah because I had never seen this pic of MJK. I thought you were right, Limehouse, when you said it had been done by the blogger. Now YOU'RE saying it's a police sketch?

As far as the painting itself, PUTANA A CASA, I find the woman MOST frightening. Her face looks HOUSE OF WAXish--burnt, decayed, . . . something. Espescially her right distorted eye. So, I know we're back to that subjectivity again, but I'm going with murder and mayhem.

Sorry to be spreading so much confusion Paul, I am simply going by what Sarah posted and I went back to the site.

Now it seems that it is neither a blogger's sketch or a crime scene sketch as Dan has clarified. What it clearly was not, ever, was a Sickert Sketch.

I know my eyes are not what they should be and I am using a powerful zoom lense to scrutinise the paintings but I honestly cannot see anything alarming about them at all. Not in the murder sense. Sorry.

[paul emmett]

Dan, right, Google it is--1st pic. Sorry;thanks.

Limehouse, I think we were all missing each other on the source. But now that I have found it on Google, Julie Roberts is a bit more of an objective source than the blogger herself, and I do see some similarities between the two works. You don't, but that's not a matter of Martians and pink computers, right? As my Dad told me when he took me to see HOUSE OF WAX way too early in life, "Don't worry: one man's art is another boy's horror."

Anyway, I did like your interpretation of BLACKMAIL, and your enthusiasm for Sickert is one of the things that makes me want to forge on.

Are you sure Putana doesn't look burned to you?

[Limehouse]

Hi Paul,

I have had another look and no, I can't see a burned woman. There is certainly a lot of shadow on the left side of the face and maybe, just maybe, she appears to have a black eye but I feel that the artist is a sensitive and compassionate narrator of a woman's most private space in opposition to her most public occupation. Certainly she is not welcoming the intrusion into her space - but that is her liberation - the artist brings life to her emotions and her sensitivities that are revealed to us- the watchers - the intruders.

Here is a site that explains some of Sickert's work - including an explanation of his work "Two Women on a Sofa' that the blogger finds so disturbing.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/degas/images/artworks/lagiuseppina.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/degas/room7.htm&h=333&w=250&sz=38&hl=en&start=1&sig2=xPsmOYAnAYEkHADWNjlsLg&tbnid=ddiZX4HL_mySIM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=89&ei=FIsLSJyNO4Wa0QSp7bW0AQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwalter%2Bsickert%2Bputana%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX

Hope the link works

[BillyE]

Thanks for the "Blackmail" pic, Stephen, however that is the black and white version. Does anyone have, indeed is there in existance, a color version of the painting? Thanks either way.

[Celesta]

Hello All,

I don't know if you all have seen this. Here is a link to a little article about, not only Sickert, but other artists and writers, as well, of Sickert's time, who were intrigued by murder, and murder mysteries. It's not a long article, but is somewhat illuminating.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2007/10/20/sick350.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/arts/2007/10/20/basick120.xml&h=350&w=276&sz=27&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=DcviD78OsqXjbM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWalter%2BSickert%2B%2B%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG

[Celesta]

Here's something that illustrates the effect Cornwell's book has had on the imagination of some people and how his reputation has been trashed. Even here, where people know that he is not the Ripper, we've allowed Cornwell's book to effect how we view this artist's work. The link is to award-winning paintings from the Trojan Art Gallery Scholastic Art Show for 2007. There's a painting down the page of Sickert. I've copied it. The artist is Serafina Laughlin, a Senior, the title of the painting is Walter Sickert, Gold Key Award, Juror's Award. The painting is actually dripping blood!

One part of me thinks old Walter would think this Ripper business hilarious. On the other hand, he might rue his antics, in trying to make people think he was JtR, even if they only thought so momentarily, if it's going to have such an effect on how people view his work.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://psdweb.parklandsd.org/phsgallery/Scholastic%25202007/serinalaflin2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://psdweb.parklandsd.org/phsgallery/scholastic2007.htm&h=310&w=250&sz=107&hl=en&start=40&tbnid=zbPJBmzvvw3WVM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWalter%2BSickert%2B%2B%26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

[paul emmett]

Thanks, Limehouse, Celesta.

I've also been reading "The Art of Murder," and looking at LA HOLLANDAISE. Even Vanderlinden admits that some of Sickert's paintings might well be of Ripper victims. And I find it noteworthy that the facial obliterations in HOLLANDAISE seem to be doing what the Ripper needed to do in Miller's Court.

I just read Celesta's latest post, so I want to add one more disclaimer: my closer looks at Sickert's works have only increased my admiration for them

[Celesta]

Thanks, Limehouse, Celesta.

I've also been reading "The Art of Murder," and looking at LA HOLLANDAISE. Even Vanderlinden admits that some of Sickert's paintings might well be of Ripper victims. And I find it noteworthy that the facial obliterations in HOLLANDAISE seem to be doing what the Ripper needed to do in Miller's Court.

I just read Celesta's latest post, so I want to add one more disclaimer: my closer looks at Sickert's works have only increased my admiration for them

Yes, Paul, the same is true of me also.

[bolo]

in re: Ripper hints in Sickert paintings -

As someone interested in "pre-modern" 19th to early 20th century symbolic art, I think that Sickert probably would not have resorted to cheap and in-your-face symbolism like a gull over Queen Victoria's shoulder or a mutilated face in order to deliver a message.

Sickert's style is holistic and atmospheric and overall very serious and deep but also has a sarcastic ring to it, at least in some cases. La Hollandaise is a good example for that, it does not display a romanticized view of a high-society lady of the night but an ordinary streetwalker lying on a cheap metal bed as one of her clients would see her.

Her face is blurred - client view again. I can see no mutilations here, sorry. In my opinion, many of his nude paintings and even the Camden Town affair ones have more social than criminal or psychological aspects.

[paul emmett]

I think that Sickert probably would not have resorted to cheap and in-your-face symbolism like a gull over Queen Victoria's shoulder or a mutilated face in order to deliver a message.



as one of her clients would see her.

Her face is blurred - client view again. I can see no mutilations here, sorry. In my opinion, many of his nude paintings and even the Camden Town affair ones have more social than criminal or psychological aspects.

Hello, bolo.

More social than psychological? Doesn't it have to be both? Can you write a poem or create a painting without putting your own psyche--conscious and/ or unconscious--in it? That's why that phrase "cheap in your face symbolism" isn't appropriate. I don't think that the gull is Gull, but I think it's something. And I don't see her face in LH as mutilated necessarily; I see it as obliterated by the artist--for some reason that goes beyond social, that Sickert himself might not even be aware of.

And perhaps it is a client seeing her as horrific and animalistic, but then we are left with the question of what drove Sickert to suggest that.

And aren't the layers here one reason that Sickert is a great, complex artist?

[bolo]

Hello, bolo.

More social than psychological? Doesn't it have to be both? Can you write a poem or create a painting without putting your own psyche--conscious and/ or unconscious--in it? That's why that phrase "cheap in your face symbolism" isn't appropriate. I don't think that the gull is Gull, but I think it's something. And I don't see her face in LH as mutilated necessarily; I see it as obliterated by the artist--for some reason that goes beyond social, that Sickert himself might not even be aware of.

I see what you mean and agree with you but that's not really what I meant. In my opinion, the message of La Hollandaise or other nude paintings has more elements of social critique than hidden clues on a series of murders. Of course it's entirely possible that the obliteration of the face could have a deeper psychological meaning which even Sickert was not aware of when he did it, who knows.

And perhaps it is a client seeing her as horrific and animalistic, but then we are left with the question of what drove Sickert to suggest that.

Perhaps the obliterated face was Sickert's way to confront the viewers with a reality where a prostitute is just an anonymous lump of flesh that anyone can buy and abuse for a few pennies. We see this Dutch whore through the eyes of one of her clients who is not interested in her person or human dignity but quick dirty sex.

And aren't the layers here one reason that Sickert is a great, complex artist?

Definitely, I like his style and ductus a lot, another reason why his achievements should be viewed as "ripper-free" and unbiased as possible in order not to miss the whole picture by getting lost in discussions about some of those layers...

[paul emmett]

[Doctor X]

The problem with symbolism, and art in general, is the meaning people see in it may have nothing to do with the artist's intent.

Post-modernists and Deridadists get themselves all wet and sticky over that. It funds humanities departments.

--J.D.