Sickert's "Mrs. Barrett"

[paul emmett]

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.


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...

Hello, bolo.

I'm sorry. I couldn't bring up a copy of LH. Can you? I wanted to discuss a few points. First, why do you say the eyes of one of her clients? There is noone else in the pic. Isn't it through the artist's eyes, through our eyes. Also it seems that anonymous lump of flesh is understating it. To me it's animal, pig, inhuman, monster. Not a desirable "object," but more, or less, than anonymous. That's what the artist shows us. I don't think anyone would want sex with her, dirty and quick or not. And I'm sure that's part of the point.

Also, while I certianly agree that interpretations of Sickert, or whoever, should be as biased free as possible, but I don't see why they should be Ripper free. We interpet what we see, and if I feel that the artist in LH did much the same thing to this woman as JTR was trying to do to MJK, that has to be just another point which might be true, somewhat true or not true. But it can't be dismissed cuz it uses the R word, right?


I'm not saying that WS is JTR; I'm just saying that perhaps their "works" suggest similar feelings towards women--at times.

I'd like to look at more WS works, and I wonder if you might recommend a source. Now I have to go. I'm one of those funded as Dr. X says by the intentional fallacy.

[Limehouse]

Paul,

If you can, locate a picture of Degas' 'Woman at the Window'. The face is oblitertated. Sickert was very inspired by the work of Degas. They were contemporaries, but Degas is not being accused of being Jack the Ripper. (If they could place him in London at the time though, Cornwell would probably writing about an artists' murder ring).

Re the artist and the viewer seeing the same things - I don't think this is always the case. The artist is seeing what's there but is translating that for the viewer. Artists like Sickert have a scenario in mind when they are painting - they are narrators.

When it comes to Dali and such like, the interpretation is left more to the viewer. The artist knows what he wants to express but the viewer can take from it what he wishes, what he needs or what it represents to him (or her of course!).

[Doctor X]

Now I have to go. I'm one of those funded as Dr. X says by the intentional fallacy.

Hey, if you can get paid for writing long treatises on how Moby Dick represents the Republic of Ireland . . . who am I to judge?

--J. "Define the Universe . . . Give Three Examples" D.

[paul emmett]

Re the artist and the viewer seeing the same things - I don't think this is always the case. The artist is seeing what's there but is translating that for the viewer. Artists like Sickert have a scenario in mind when they are painting - they are narrators.

Hi, Limehouse. Good points; you have to be right. And I like the notion of narrator. All I meant was that in LA HOLLANDAISE, there is no watcher present in the pic, no customer. We are the watcher, and I do think that some would say Sickert's narrator is too. But I like it much better as just us.

The only thing you said that I might question is that the artist knows what he wants to express, and even here I would just add that much of a work's power--or meaning--can be unconscious for artist,narrator and viewer.

I will look at Degas.

Addendum. I looked at WATW, and I don't think we have to worry about even Cornwell comin' after Degas. This woman still has features, and seemingly delicate ones at that. Not the obliterated nose transformed into a pig's snout. It's like she's veiled, not butchered.

Hi, J.D. I just wanted to say that I've never been in a Department that cared too much about the author's intent. That WOULD be the Intentional Fallacy. O'Connor said her works focus on the central tenets of Christian Theism; Faulkner said he never read or used Freud. Oh, and Melville said Moby Dick had never been anywhere near Ireland.

When people here say if only they had caught JTR, he could have told us why he did it, I just fear, "probably not." Motivations come in all shapes and sizes, conscious and unconscious. But authors' intent, explicit or implicit, needs proof like Jack's and anything else.

[bolo]

Hello, bolo.

I'm sorry. I couldn't bring up a copy of LH. Can you?

I have tried to attach a JPEG of LH to this post but there was an error so I just post the link where I got it from:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_p2O9FDg3MfI/RzyEb0RsRKI/AAAAAAAAAp0/Ypjh_DVIUrE/s1600-h/hollandaise.jpg

I wanted to discuss a few points. First, why do you say the eyes of one of her clients? There is noone else in the pic. Isn't it through the artist's eyes, through our eyes.

Judging from the angle, the viewer takes up the position of a client standing on the foot of the bed. In my opinion, Sickert wanted us to view the scene through the eyes of said client.

Also it seems that anonymous lump of flesh is understating it. To me it's animal, pig, inhuman, monster. Not a desirable "object," but more, or less, than anonymous. That's what the artist shows us. I don't think anyone would want sex with her, dirty and quick or not. And I'm sure that's part of the point.

To me it's not the woman who seems like a monster but the drab and shabby room where she rests in utter despair on a cheap metal bed. And she is part of the decay and its victim at the same time.

I would have chosen a different title for this particular painting: "Do you like what you see?".

Also, while I certianly agree that interpretations of Sickert, or whoever, should be as biased free as possible, but I don't see why they should be Ripper free. We interpet what we see, and if I feel that the artist in LH did much the same thing to this woman as JTR was trying to do to MJK, that has to be just another point which might be true, somewhat true or not true. But it can't be dismissed cuz it uses the R word, right?

The problem with this is that stories about Sickert and the Ripper originally came from sources that should be taken with more than just a grain of salt, like the late Steven Knight and later on Jean Overton Fuller and Patricia Cornwell. Sickert probably would never have been mentioned in connection with the East End murders if it weren't for those three, and others.

So, did Knight, Cornwell, Sickert jun. et al just drag a Ripper theme into Sickert's art or was it Walter Sickert himself who started painting hints about the murders into his pictures?

We may never know for sure, the whole thing seems to have turned into some sort of soap opera by now, particularly after Cornwell's book... It's highly probable that Sickert drew some inspiration from the events in the East End, but then, thousands of others did too, artists as well as authors of ripper letters who let their sexual fantasies go berserk, inspiration has many faces. Still, there is a difference between inspiration and this web of rumours and conspiracy theories that had been spun around poor Walter.

I'd like to look at more WS works, and I wonder if you might recommend a source. Now I have to go. I'm one of those funded as Dr. X says by the intentional fallacy.

Check out the second link in my post on page 2 of this thread to a preview of Wendy Baron's book on Sickert and his work, it's my #1 ressource and still available via Amazon but it's a bit steep (around €70).

[paul emmett]

Hello, bolo.

You make many good points. I certianly see what you mean by the angle of vision in LH, but I took it to make the viewers, us, the potential customers. And that as you said led to a "do you like what you see?" That, in turn, led to an emphatic, "NO, I'M OUTTA HERE." Whores, their environment, women? sin? Repulsive and ominous. For me as viewer repulsion and fear, not pity and empathy.

But that's what I've always maintained that JTR felt, repulsion and fear. So, while I know that I wouldn't be here most likely without those folks like Knight and Cornwall who ain't so convincing, I still like being here. And I'm off to check out the source you recommended.

[Limehouse]

Hi Bolo,

Great posts. It's true that we can probably not fully identify precisely what Sickert was trying to communicate in these darker paintings I think part of his need to uncover and reveal the seedier side of life, especially prostitution, was not necessarily to lay open the squalor and filth of it but in some way to reveal the viewers' role in the degradation of the women.

Having said that, many of his paintings of loose women also celebrate their difference from their straight-laced sisters.

As I have said often, Sickert's work also reveals a sensitivity. Look at the broken man in 'The Camden Town Murder'. I can feel his sorrow.

[bolo]

Hi Bolo,

Great posts. It's true that we can probably not fully identify precisely what Sickert was trying to communicate in these darker paintings I think part of his need to uncover and reveal the seedier side of life, especially prostitution, was not necessarily to lay open the squalor and filth of it but in some way to reveal the viewers' role in the degradation of the women.

Thanks.

The uncovering aspect is very important here in my opinion, Sickert created La Hollandaise and other nude paintings in the early years of the 20th century in times of political and social turmoil so it's not unreasonable to believe that he added his own comments with his art, even though not all of his nude paintings are as dark as LH (see below).

Having said that, many of his paintings of loose women also celebrate their difference from their straight-laced sisters.

Here's a link to an interesting site with several of Sickert's Camden Town Nudes:

http://www.thearttribune.com/Walter-Sickert-The-Camden-Town.html

Some of the settings and women look less seedy but there still is an aura of decay around them, I get this impression from many of his paintings.

As I have said often, Sickert's work also reveals a sensitivity. Look at the broken man in 'The Camden Town Murder'. I can feel his sorrow.

Yes, and if you forget about "Camden Town Murder" and take the alternate title "What Shall We Do For The Rent", his sorrow becomes even more obvious.

I knew the painting before I heard about its alleged Ripper background but it never really gave me the impression of a murder scene, despite its title.

[Limehouse]

I am really grateful to everyone who has contributed to this thread. It's so nice to have a reasoned, informed and rational debate about Sickert and his art. It's obvious that many people are interested in looking at the context of Sickert's paintings, in studying the post-impressionist style and in looking beyond the title of the paintings and the wild imaginings of Cornwell and others who have so damaged Sickert's rightful title of one of Britain's most important painters.

Thank you all.

[BillyE]

I can't speak for anyone else, but talking about art is supposed to be both enlightening and fun. I, being one who knows prescious little about art, enjoy talking and learning about it. Even if you don't consider the Jack the Ripper aspect of Sickert's art it is still very compelling. I enjoy the thread as well.

[Christine]

I have another interpretation of The Camden Town Murder/What Shall we do for the Rent which combines several other suggestions and actually fits both titles.

The woman is Emily Dimmock (or someone like her). The man is Bertram Shaw, Dimmock's common law husband and fiance (or someone like him). He's just come home and found her naked in bed with a client.

A row ensues. He calls her some names, and orders her to stop taking in clients. "But what shall we do for the rent?" she rejoinders.

He has no answer. He sits on the bed and drops his head in despair. She places a sympathetic hand on his knee, but turns away as she also feels his pain and humiliation.

This also fits pretty well with Sickert's exploration of the seamier sides of London life, the exploitation of the poor, and the lengths to which these woman were forced to go for money.

[Doppelganger]

I read somewhere (I can't really remember) that sickert's painting "Mrs. Barrett" was a window into MJK's apartment and that her body is in the background. I looked at the painting and it doesn't look like that.

I found this copy of the picture.




What do you think?

i don`t see MJK`s body but god that has a creepy feel to it.

[Doppelganger]

Hi Celesta,



I agree, Sickert was interested in the murders, and certainly did use them as a topic (the re-named painting Jack the Ripper's Bedroom) but then so did the author of the original novel The Lodger (can't remember the author's name - shameful of me!).

Regards

LH

a little too interested if you ask me now i don`t think he was jack but i can believe that he wrote some of the letters ,his interest in the ripper murders seems unhealthy.

[PC 1888]

Greetings. If Sara D wishes to see what or indeed who Sickert secreted in the mirror behind Mrs Barrett, then may I suggest visiting the following :-

Unexplained - Mysteries.com.
Jack the Ripper: Sickert & The Art of Murder ( Pg 14 of the thread )

Kind Regards. CAW

" The blind will see what they want to see "

[Sarah D]

Greetings. If Sara D wishes to see what or indeed who Sickert secreted in the mirror behind Mrs Barrett, then may I suggest visiting the following :-

Unexplained - Mysteries.com.
Jack the Ripper: Sickert & The Art of Murder ( Pg 14 of the thread )

Kind Regards. CAW

" The blind will see what they want to see "

Thanks PC and everyone who replied!