Horrible, horrible paintings and - a body in a river?

[Ausgirl]

While I am not convinced that Sickert was the Ripper, I do think there was -something- seriously wrong with him.

Case in point: This absolutely horrible picture titled "Chicken".

Sickert seems to have thrived on shocking and even disgusting people. I get the feeling that all his Christmases happened at once with both the Ripper murders and the Camden Town murder.

The Mrs. Barrett series is interesting to me (and really quite horrible) on several levels. Firstly, in almost all of them you can divide "Mrs. Barrett's" face in half and see two completely different faces (try it with a bit of card.. it's quite eerie how different they are) so there's a feeling of intense duplicity. One of the facial hemispheres looks oddly masculine, to me. Another looks pretty much like a pile of raw meat. Secondly, there's 'shades' of the ripper in top hat-shaped shadows and hatted men lurking in reflections.

Here's another painting, titled Miss Earhart's Arrival.

Miss Earhart looks pretty much as if she just spent the last week submerged in a lake.

What's my point? Well, much has been said about Sickert's being like unto Degas and other contemporaries. But even among the ones who painted the gritty realities of the working class poor - none of them depicted faces made of meat or so consistently implied death and tried to evoke the more disgusting end of the horror scale as Sickert did. Let alone obsess like a complete loon over lurid murder cases.

Here's some subtle Sickert horror: "Self Portrait"

Though, like another supposed 'self portrait' "Lazarus Breaks His Fast", the figure i8n it doesn't look much like Sickert at all. Van Gogh on a terrible bender, maybe...

Who is this man in the mirror, beside a limbless bust, holding... no, surely not.. a bloody cleaver?

Speaking of limbs - the famous detail from "Ennui".

The figure is often supposed to be 'Queen Victoria'. But if you look at it, its arms are not actually connected to its body at all. And what is taken for 'green fur' or 'bushes' looks to me a lot like water. The whole looks rather like a chopped up person being thrown into a river. Which tends to make an odd kind of sense in a painting like 'Ennui', where a murder might seem something like a relief.

It makes the startled-looking gull a bit more logical, too. Well, moreso than it being a symbol for a murderous, Masonic royal doctor.

I am not saying Sickert was the Torso killer. Or, you know, Jack the Ripper.

Just pointing out how pervasive gruesome, bloody death is through the body (pun intended) of his work. And, added to his obsession with the Ripper, and proximity to the murder in Camden, the utterly horrific imagery implicit in his work make me wonder what sort of man he was, exactly, and what drove him to seek beyond 'fashionably shocking' to true and visceral vulgarity.

Gosh I can blather. Question: do you think the 'Queen Vic" image -might- be a body being thrown into a river? Or does it still look like a woman wearing green fur to you?

[Ally]

I am sorry you've lost me at the opening paragraph. Other than the choice of subject, what precisely is so "absolutely horrible" or "shocking and disgusting" about the painting Chicken?

[Limehouse]

Hello Ausgirl,

Well, you have made some interesting comments but I would like to ask you - have you seen any of Sickert's paintings in real life or just online? Looking at a flat image on a computer monitor is very different from standing before the real thing where the light is controlled and the painting 'comes to life'.

Secondly, how much of Sickert's work have you studied? Have you just been directed towards the paintings that you quote above by people who believe he was the ripper or have you looked at a wider range of his work?

Thirdly, what do you think was Sickert's objective in painting some of these portraits? Was it to reproduce a photographic image of the person, or was it to explore the effect of light and shadow on a face and body, or was it to reveal some deeper themes running through these people's lives? What do you think the role of an artist was at this time? How did Sickert see his role as an artist?

Additionally, your interpretation of Sickert's work is just that - your subjective deconstruction - but not necessarily what Sickert intended.

Furthermore, why do you repeat the often expressed view that 'Sickert was obsessed with the ripper murders' when only a tiny portion of his work deals with these events? Couldn't you make the same case about many authors who contribute to this site and who have written widely about the murders? Couldn't you make the same case against film makers and directors who have made numerous films about the murders - and even the audiences who read the books and watch the films?

Finally - why must Sickert have 'something seriously wrong with him' because of how he painted and what he painted? Would you make the same judgement about Agatha Christie or the author of Sherlock Holmes or, indeed, Patricia Cornwell because their works of fiction included many gruesome murders?

Please, before you make a final judgement about Sickert's work, have a look at some more of his paintings such as those he painted in Dieppe (one of bathers, and another of horse racing). Do some reading around Sickert's style and what he was trying to accomplish. He was a 'narrative' painter - not just trying to reproduce a pretty picture - but attempting to capture a story, a spirit, feelings, atmosphere and so on.

Julie

[lynn cates]

dentition

Hello Ally.

"what precisely is so "absolutely horrible" or "shocking and disgusting" about the painting Chicken?"

Silly. Look at the dental work. Obviously British. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Excellent post, Julie.

Sickert IS undoubtedly of interest to "Ripperphiles" since his name has been linked to the case (not necessarily as the killer) from various sources - Florence Pash/Osbert Sitwell even before Knight and Cornwell.

I went to the Royal Academy exhibition of his works, many years ago (and still have the massive catalogue) in part because of the Ripper connection. You are right that it is crucial to see his paintings in real life to "appreciate" them.

Sickert was, as has been said elsewhere on Casebook, not some saddo artist with issues - he was highly influential on those who came after him. Drawing snap and superficial judgements based on a subjective view of his work is not (IMHO) sufficient.

That said, he does seem to have been fascinated by murder - not least the 1888 killings. And Cornwell has done enough to suggest that he may well have written some of the letters sent to the police. I don't see that as out of character - but it does NOT make him the murderer, indeed, I'd suggest it makes him LESS likely to be the killer.

In another thread I cited a possible origin for his "fetish" of a red bandana handkerchief. In his youth Sickert had been part of Irving's Lyceum company. The scenic artist at the Lyceum - and one might assume that the artistic Sickert would have known him - always wore a red bandana as (as one writer put it) a signal for action. I wonder whether this was something Sickert picked up and adopted in his own way.

Phil

[bolo]

Hi Ausgirl, all,

I think it's important to always keep the Ripper case and Sickert's art separated if you really want to get the whole picture of his works as it reduces the narrative character of his series of paintings as Julie so aptly put it to the gloomy aspects of his style.

However, this what many people perceive as depressing gloom is the result of a different, a new light (both literally and figuratively) in which Sickert wants us to see the objects and subjects of his paintings. The deconstruction often seen in his works (like the obliterated face of La Hollandaise) can be seen as aggressive, but to me, it's part of his style to make the viewer concentrate on the story behind a painting instead of reducing its single elements to mere symbolism.

This was Cornwell's major mistake, she formed a theory by taking things out of context but never got the deeper meaning of Sickert's paintings. What she did with some of his original works was unforgivable in my opinion.

Regards,

Boris

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Ausgirl

What one person finds as horrible others see genius. Personal feelings about the paintings of Walter Sickert range from no talent to absolute masterpieces.

I have looked at every Sickert painting I can find, not just the ones that supposedly show sign of murderous intent. I do not like the style Sickert painted, but it was his style in all his paintings not just the ones Cornwell suspects. So one mustn't judge the ones one finds strange as all of them show that same partially unfinished style.

The irony as I have said elsewhere is that Cornwell spent a fortune collecting original Sickert paintings. And I will bet she wouldn't part with any of them unless she made a handsome profit on them. She has actually made the painting increase in value.

Sickert can be suspected as he was in the area at the time of the murders, was always furtive in his comings and goings as he liked secret studios in which to paint, and he was known to hire prostitutes as models. Also he had connections to other suspects, (Royal Conspiracy) and probably penned some of the Ripper letters, Cornwell's evidence there being hard to refute. Suspect, yes. Paintings as proof of murderous actions, not by a long shot. Even the letters aren't proof of guilt, just that he enjoyed bedeviling the authorities with letters claiming to be from JtR.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Phil H]

Also he had connections to other suspects, (Royal Conspiracy)

Whom do you have in mind, Dale?

Phil

[Limehouse]

Hi Ausgirl

Sickert can be suspected as he was in the area at the time of the murders,

God Bless

Darkendale

Was he?

There is much more to suggest he was in France at the time of the murders, surely?

Julie

[RavenDarkendale]

Also he had connections to other suspects, (Royal Conspiracy)

Whom do you have in mind, Dale?

Phil

Sickert's name is often mentioned in connection with Dr. William Gull and John Netley

[RavenDarkendale]

Was he?

There is much more to suggest he was in France at the time of the murders, surely?

Julie

It's debatable, certainly. He may have been in France, or he may have been in the Whitechapel area in one of his secret studios. Depends on whom you believe. I would however revise my own statement to "he could have been in Whitechapel where he had secret studios so he could paint undisturbed by anyone seeing one of his prostitute models entering."

Beyond the "maybe" I cannot in reality state anything. Thanks, Julie. I depend on all of you on the forum to keep me honest!

God Bless

Darkendale

[Ausgirl]

Gosh, I could not be tardier in offering a reply, could I? <-- rhetorical question, in case of confusion.

I think I did state somewhat early in my original post that I was not saying, nor even thinking, that Sickert was the Ripper. Sorry if anyone missed that, I'll bold and underscore it in future.

I was just eyeballing that horrible (and I still think it's horrible - quite subjectively, thank you) painting that I linked late at night, after staring at it for a bit and pondering why on earth he'd create such a ghastly, zombie-faced portrait of somebody he apparently knew. I was wondering what that young girl thought, when he showed her the finished painting. It seemed to me primarily horrible for the potential cruelty of it, I think.

As well as mulling over the various darkly suggestive works of the post-Ripper London/Camden era. Some of which are, in any light, also quite horrid to stare at, for reasons including my having the pondered the reasons for said suggestiveness.

Yes, I have studied art, along with psychology and sociology and various other bits and bobs to do with media, so not really a member of the unwashed masses, sorry. No, I haven't seen a Sickert collection in person, but I have endeavoured to look at as many quality reproductions as possible. Yes, I am aware of the general goals of the Impressionists and am quite, quite aware than none of them involved acts of faithful photographic reproduction. I am also aware that Sickert painted gorgeous idylls and some horsies, too. Just to answer a few of the many questions put.

While I am sure I'm now firmly dismissed as a Cornwellian nutjob for daring to suggest there was something wrong with Sickert, I do see hints of self-loathing in his later works, and I do see an attitude of loathing also (his own or a general sort) in the defaced, lumpy women he presents in his 'La Hollandaise' phase. And yes, some echoes of the Ripper victims --- whether this was to belatedly shock the already shocked persons of his era, thereby flogging a not quite dead horse (so to speak), or to make some sort of tantalisingly obscure social commentary, or just to belatedly play on the mystery of it all, I don't know. I think the echoes of the Ripper and Camden murders that (to me, at least, and I think I am not a lonely petunia there) do exist don't seem to actually achieve much other than to perhaps explore bits of his own inner darknesses, including the desire to shock. Some of them - in my opinion - really aren't pretty. Jack the Ripper's Bedroom, indeed.

Of course, he also saw and painted gorgeous, uplifting and obviously apparent things. But those are a tad boring, especially in discussion threads on a dedicated Jack the Ripper forum.

That said, I quite enjoy the seeming negligence (though yes, yes, it wasn't a bit negligent, bolded and underscored) in the loose application of paint depicting areas of light and dark, so that they run together in a nearly spilled-liquid (and therefore startlingly real, in a shifting-in-the-corner-of-one's-eye way). And how the defaced nature of La Hollandaise and her ilk force the eye and, through that, the mind toward a closer awareness of shape, toward the character suggested in setting and pose and even colour, defying the perceptual grip that facial expression tends to hold on the human psyche..

Also, the horsies are quite nice.

Unlike 'Chicken'.

[pinkmoon]

I hear a royal coach approaching

[Ausgirl]

Drawn by a flock of gulls, perhaps. For goodness' sake.

I am still curious, by the by, about the purpose of the strange leggy arms of the little figure on the wall in Ennui. Almost Cubist.. it seems very alien to the painting. I was really after a bit of discussion on it, as it's quite curious.

No seabirds required, nor syphilitic princes, unless they come bearing laudanum filled grapes, which might not be all that bad at this point.

[Limehouse]

Gosh, I could not be tardier in offering a reply, could I? <-- rhetorical question, in case of confusion.

I think I did state somewhat early in my original post that I was not saying, nor even thinking, that Sickert was the Ripper. Sorry if anyone missed that, I'll bold and underscore it in future.

I was just eyeballing that horrible (and I still think it's horrible - quite subjectively, thank you) painting that I linked late at night, after staring at it for a bit and pondering why on earth he'd create such a ghastly, zombie-faced portrait of somebody he apparently knew. I was wondering what that young girl thought, when he showed her the finished painting. It seemed to me primarily horrible for the potential cruelty of it, I think.

As well as mulling over the various darkly suggestive works of the post-Ripper London/Camden era. Some of which are, in any light, also quite horrid to stare at, for reasons including my having the pondered the reasons for said suggestiveness.

Yes, I have studied art, along with psychology and sociology and various other bits and bobs to do with media, so not really a member of the unwashed masses, sorry. No, I haven't seen a Sickert collection in person, but I have endeavoured to look at as many quality reproductions as possible. Yes, I am aware of the general goals of the Impressionists and am quite, quite aware than none of them involved acts of faithful photographic reproduction. I am also aware that Sickert painted gorgeous idylls and some horsies, too. Just to answer a few of the many questions put.

While I am sure I'm now firmly dismissed as a Cornwellian nutjob for daring to suggest there was something wrong with Sickert, I do see hints of self-loathing in his later works, and I do see an attitude of loathing also (his own or a general sort) in the defaced, lumpy women he presents in his 'La Hollandaise' phase. And yes, some echoes of the Ripper victims --- whether this was to belatedly shock the already shocked persons of his era, thereby flogging a not quite dead horse (so to speak), or to make some sort of tantalisingly obscure social commentary, or just to belatedly play on the mystery of it all, I don't know. I think the echoes of the Ripper and Camden murders that (to me, at least, and I think I am not a lonely petunia there) do exist don't seem to actually achieve much other than to perhaps explore bits of his own inner darknesses, including the desire to shock. Some of them - in my opinion - really aren't pretty. Jack the Ripper's Bedroom, indeed.

Of course, he also saw and painted gorgeous, uplifting and obviously apparent things. But those are a tad boring, especially in discussion threads on a dedicated Jack the Ripper forum.

That said, I quite enjoy the seeming negligence (though yes, yes, it wasn't a bit negligent, bolded and underscored) in the loose application of paint depicting areas of light and dark, so that they run together in a nearly spilled-liquid (and therefore startlingly real, in a shifting-in-the-corner-of-one's-eye way). And how the defaced nature of La Hollandaise and her ilk force the eye and, through that, the mind toward a closer awareness of shape, toward the character suggested in setting and pose and even colour, defying the perceptual grip that facial expression tends to hold on the human psyche..

Also, the horsies are quite nice.

Unlike 'Chicken'.

Hi Ausgirl,

You say you see 'hints of self loathing' in some of Sickert's work but we cannot be sure that this is what Sickert was actually intending to express.

Yes, of course he explored dark themes in some of his work, and perhaps he saw that as part of his role. I personally feel he was trying to depict something deeper than surface loathing. I feel there is an empathy and a pathos in some of this type of work - and you see things differently. That is the thing about art - it is subjective even when the topic is very explicit and the intention clear. That is why I have a real problem with Cornwell using the art as evidence of Sickert being a murderer.