but i have read JM's last couple of postings, and wanted to say a couple of other things generally. (Ally i know you have posted several times since we last spoke but your posts are descending into Fisherisms (i.e., they are getting as interminable as my own
), and i just haven't had the time to give them the attention they need for adequate rebuttal 
but i will get round to it soon, i promise! ) Be warned though...this is going to be a long one!One of the points i wanted to make was that there was a controversy on these boards not long after i had joined regarding the suitability or otherwise of a book being published, the cover of which would be displaying the crime scene photograph of MJK.
I actually changed my mind...my original stance was that it was using MJK as a shock to commercialise the book, exploiting her in death as she had been commercially exploited in her life, and that it was a poor decision. I remember having a discussion with you, JM, in chat on the very topic and you actually helped change my mind...you were fervently against censorship of any kind on that occasion.
Personally, i find it quite odd, that those people quite happy to see Mary's actual mutilated vagina and actual mutilated breasts, extremely intimate and personal photographs, released to general consumption, without her consent i might add, continually reproduced in works of history for all to pore over to their heart's content, are the very same people who appear to be so vociferously protective and defensive of an unreal representation of her body in a work of art...if you care so much about "Mary" the person, why don't you start a campaign to ban the continued commercialised use of her actual body before you move on to derviations of it? That would appear be more consistent with your expressed objections (i'd say intended objections, but i believe that would be haughtily presumptious of me to assume i know more about your own intentions than you do
).Indeed, the approval of the display of her actual mutilated vagina and breasts to all and sundry is legitmised apparently only by its choice of context (of course utilising and commercialising her image for research or history is a much nobler enterprise than the plebs either creating or viewing an art exhibit on the subject in a Halloween 'show' would possibly be capable of {i do so love elitism!}) Oh, we can look at it, sure we can, because we are 'serious researchers' aren't we, and we can be trusted not to view it as something entertaining or titilating, but he can't, she can't, they can't...why? Because we know their response would be to be entertained, titilated, amused by it...we know not only the artist's intentions better than he does, but the intentions of everyone who goes to see it, and, not only that, but we know exactly how everyone (other than us, obviously) will react to it. Wow...we are a lot of know-it-alls, aren't we!
By the way, when viewing exhibits in a museum, is that called a history 'show'; paintings in the Louvre, is that an art 'show'? Aren't they just all exhibitions of various kinds, composed of a number of different genres of exhibit, which will please/displease subjectively, as art tends to do? Or is it the case, as i tend to suspect, that people who have made up their minds that they don't like this particular piece are using the word 'show' in a derogatory manner, since doing so allows them to label the work as being placed in an inappropriate context and justify their own point of view using semantics? They are so busy shoring up the shaky foundations of their moral highground that they sometimes forget to add that deciding this piece was inappropriately and tastelessly displayed/placed is just their opinion of course; perhaps if they paused in their busy crusade of morally educating the rest of us and berating us for our lack of principles in protecting the unadulterated dissemination of the image of a mannequin...i mean the real explicit image of the actual victim, Mary, sorry, they might have more time to devote to exposing our apparent double standards regarding the same (ironic eh?). Either that or they might take time to actually read what the artist has said about the placement of his work, and actually acknowledge that he ought to have a better grasp of his own intentions than they could ever pretend to attain to.
This case of double standards on the image (fine to display her actual body, tasteless, apparently, to respresent it in any other form) leads me only to conclude that it must be the context of the image that has given rise to such offence. So, censorship must extend not just to what images certain people sanction for general consumption, but also to the context in which those images appear? It's all about control really isn't it. Elitist control...that 'we' in the community here have assessed ourselves of being capable of deciding not only what is viewed, or worthy of being viewed, but also where it should be viewed and who is responsible enough to give a serious response to it.
I've asked this question before several times during my posting on this thread...have yet to have anyone brave enough to answer (apologies to Ally or anyone posting over the past day and a half-ish if you have been brave enough to answer it...will catch up with whole thread sometime soon)...but why is it perfectly all right to recreate the murders verbally, in history books, in poems and creative writing (there is a subsection on this forum devoted to Ripper-related creativity, entitled Creative Writing and Expression -An area to post short stories, poems, artwork or any other creative expression with reference to the Ripper Murders ,) but somehow sanctionable to recreate them visually? The reproduction/creative representation itself is accepted, the reproduction in the context of art/entertainment is accepted, hence the sub-forum for people to contribute what they 'create' there, indeed, artwork itself is even mentioned, encouraging people to share their own artistic interpretations of the murders...yet apparently Dave is not entitled to express his own creativity in relation to the case, at least without being called a perverted egoist or having his own clearly stated intentions misrepresented by people who just don't like what the freedom of creative expression has entitled him to create! Perhaps the first posting on the creative expression forum should be a sticky laying out exactly which censorship rules we all need to stringently apply, lest anyone get the mistaken idea that creativity is a free and subjective enterprise where they might be able to indulge their own artistic impulses and produce their own 'art'. That was sarcasm, by the way.
Those so vocally vociferous in lambasting Dave Allen may like to view the following thread as an example of a posting on the creative expression forum...barely a word, and certainly no words of censure, for this little 'artistic' gem, was there?
All forms of artistic expression are equal, but some are more equal than others, perhaps?
A wise man once said, 'if we don't believe in freedom of expression for our enemies, then we do not believe in it at all', or words to that effect...yes, we have the right to like or dislike what is said, or expressed, or created, but do we have the right to pretend we have the moral highground when with one eye we are sneering at a representation of an image, while with the other we are continuing to believe that 'we' are entitled to choose to view the reality that the sneered-upon representation was derived from, a real body, a real woman, her real vagina, ripped open, and pretend that this is somehow a 'higher', more moral, thing to do? Give me a break. I get you don't like it. That's fine. What's not fine is the pretense that your judgement is any more valid, either morally or artistically, than the artist who created it or anyone viewing it who gets something from it (and no, i don't mean titillation, spectacle, entertainment...i've adequately expressed my personal reaction to it elsewhere on this thread and it doesn't need repeating).
Objections have been raised about its inclusion amongst cartoon monsters, fictional creations like Frankenstein's creature (notice i don't use the word monster...there never was a Frankenstein's monster...Mary Shelley called him a 'creature', not a monster...but is that semantics?). It is tasteless in this context, apparently, and speaks volumes, apparently at much higher decibels, or at least in decibels only perceptible by the enlightened few, much like the pitch at which dogs can hear but their Masters remain oblivious to, about the artist's intent: of course, next time someone says something that you take the wrong way, and they attempt to disabuse you of your mistake, your response shouldn't be to say, 'oh sorry, i misunderstood you, i thought you meant x.y.z'...oh no. The correct response is to reply, "no, i didn't get the wrong end of the stick...what you in fact meant was what i understood you to mean...and i am sorry if you disagree, but i know your intentions much better than you do." See how well that goes down with them!
Going back for a moment to my comparison between the acceptance of the murders as suitable material for creative expression, consider this analogy. An anthology of short stories is being planned. You are asked to contribute one. The topic is 'The Human Condition.' You are shown the other submissions. All of them are basically using a 'comic' model to represent what the human condition means to the authors. You consider your own response. Your own response sees the human condition as basically tragic. You consider whether it is appropriate to insert into an anthology characterised by a generally comic approach to life your own diverging view. Your story is about the murder of a young woman, not only murdered but mutilated too. You consider whether it would be the right context. Most people will be entertained by the other submissions; they will elicit laughter, amusement, wry contemplation of what it is to be human, within the audience. Your story is not designed for that purpose; your story will not entertain. Your story will challenge the audience, who will happen upon a radically different approach, a radically different subject matter, a tragedy within the general perception of human life as a comedy; yet, on reflection, is this not the ideal place to put your tragic interpretation of the subject? The audience will not be expecting it; they will be relaxed, off their guard, accustomed to reading the funny, and the witty ...your own tragic representation will hit them like a freight train hurtling full speed into the terminal buffers. It will stand out; they will take notice. They will be challenged, just like you were, in the writing of it and in the choosing of where to publish it.
Far from seeming an inappropriate addition to the anthology, your questioning has brought you to the conclusion that your own work would fit perfectly into the context. A stark reminder that there is more than one interpretation of what it is to live the human condition. Nothing is gratuitous. Your creation is not metaphorically blood spattered for effect...indeed, where you could choose explicit expressions for heightened effect, you deliberately choose not to do so. Sometimes, less is more. Sometimes, understatement speaks much louder than emphasis. So, you take your creative inspiration from a true life event, and relate it all with a starkness, a bareness, a matter-of-factuality that will have a much stronger effect on your audience than hyperbole or lengthy descriptions of blood and gore.
On reflection, you decide that you will submit your tragic interpretation. Why? Is it because issues of appropriate placement have not occurred to you? No; indeed, you have spent a long time thinking about it, considering what else is to be included, how to compose it, how to do justice to your material. You've asked yourself the difficult and uncomfortable questions. Your motivation is not to gratuitously shock, nor is it to fall into the role of entertainment that could be expected from its given context. Your art has asked awkward questions of you; now you want it to ask your audience the same questions. You want them to challenge their expectations; to question their motivations; to enter that sphere of art that engenders discomfort, disquiet, dissent.
Now, rewrite the above, substituting 'art exhibit' for 'story' and really read what Dave has said about how much contemplation he gave to those very same issues...the time he took in crafting such a faithfully factually replicated expression of his own experience of the murders; note that the explicitness in the piece is not his own expression, but a factual component of his subject; where artistic judgement was required, for example in the use of colour, Dave not only shows how carefully he considered the effect this would have, but how good his artistic judgement actually is by rejecting this option in favour of understatement, allowing the representation of Mary's body the authenticity of speaking for itself, consciously minimising any appeal to those who might be tempted to be attracted to the image by any element of gore or blood.
In regards the suitability of context, did Dave not give appropriate consideration to this point? Did he dash out something gratuitous as spectacle? Did he not consider very carefully the media interpretation of what it is to be a monster; what most people would think of when they hear the word monster (Frankenstein's creature, ghosts and ghouls etc); being skilled at recreating such images in special effects, could he not have decided to contribute such a monster to the exhibition? Did he not actually take the theme and question himself deeply about what his own interpretation of a monster was...whether our usual perception of monsters as being scary fictions that we like to frighten ourselves with in ghost stories and horror films was the only possible interpretation of what a monster is? Whether those fictional monsters, Frankenstein's creature for example, are actually more human, and human beings actually more monstrous, than our typical experience suggests?
He could have easily contributed a cartoon or fictional monster, couldn't he. He decided to buck the trend. He decided to challenge expectations. He decided to give the people attending that 'show', those plebs who we ’know’ only attended for titillation and amusement, a radically different experience of what being a monster is, as they wandered around the exhibits, no doubt marvelling at the vampires and mummies and werewolves. There would be one exhibit that night that wouldn't be just gazed at for a moment, then passed by, and forgotten, one meaningless fiction among a dozen other equally meaningless fictions. One exhibit would make those people stop, stop, and actually see, actually question, what it is to be a real monster; what the experience of coming across a real monster can be like. Amongst the commercialism and gratuitousness of the usual monster media, the vacariousness of the experience (enjoyment?) of other representations of horror/monsters, films like Saw and Hostel for example, one man would choose to show horror fans what authentic horror was actually like, what it actually meant, why perhaps we should not pass by at least one of those exhibits in casual laughter...that should not draw censure from us, in my opinion, but praise.
Creative derivations should always take us back to, and inform our understanding of, the originals, in my view. Thus, other interpretations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the Boris Karloff films, the Kenneth Brannagh version, inaptly named 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' but then deviating in what i would consider major details from the author's work, should always take us back to the original. Studying that particular book, and relating subsequent creative interpretations of it, led me to question why the 'creature' was always referred to as a 'monster'; in my experience of the original, the monsters in the novel were actually the human beings capable of treating the doctor's creation with such contempt and cruelty. I questioned the definition of monster and re-read the original text to see exactly how Shelley herself had referred to her creation, reading it from cover to cover, in great detail. Not once did she use the word monster in relation to her creature. The only use of monster/monstrous, if i recall correctly, was in the interpretations others made of the creature; the author's voice consistently, pertinently, speaks of a 'creature'...a newborn perverted by the injustices of the society in which he is raised. So, those other representations did their job; they led me back to the original, and enhanced my knowledge and experience of the original. Someone else's creative response to the original led me to question my own response. Not a bad thing, i don't think. I've already said how the experience of Dave's artistic response has led me to an almost revelatory experience, both visually and theoretically, of the original photograph. I am grateful for that.
My final point (shut up already, babybird, i hear you all cry, as i duck the rotten eggs and tomatoes (or 'tomatoes' for American contributors
*) is to comment on the various responses Dave himself has made to this thread. Ally thinks his art speaks volumes about him; i actually agree with her; where i disagree profoundly is in interpreting what it says. Augmenting my own interpretation of what it says, are Dave's own words about his intention and his creation. Dave has responded with dignity and calm to some very nasty personal comments made about him on the basis of subjective interpretation of his art. He has not chosen to respond abusively. He has not chosen to storm off and throw his rattle out of the pram, and refuse to even contribute here again, which he could have done, perhaps considering we weren't even open to giving him a fair hearing.
What he has done is offer to answer questions from critics and admirers alike. What he has done is to actually thank his critics for their negative feedback and encourage other questions to be asked. What he has done is go into a detailed explanation of the personal questioning of the artistic intentions that he made of himself, before and during, and i expect even after, the creation of his exhibit. Nobody with bad intentions asks themselves those sorts of questions...would it be right, would it be appropriate, would it be acceptable, to do it this way, or that way, or at all. People whose intentions are to entertain would have used caricature, comedy, coloured in the blood, spent far less time and energy and probably money on creating something for such a purpose. Dave's questioning, respectful approach to his subject matter, his stated intention to let Mary speak for herself, to add nothing that would detract from her story, tells me more about his intent than any sensationalised, haranguing, nit-picking, semantic approach to disassembling every word he uses and trying to imbue it with a negative connotation to try to represent Dave's intentions as contrary to which he has honestly told us they were.
Good art asks questions; so do good artists. McCarthy’s Rents and Dave Allen are examples of both of these things.
In my opinion, of course, which is worth no more and no less than anybody else’s.
* Ally…in light of this point, I think I need to say, ‘let’s call the whole thing off.’
Apologies for the essay, but some of you may have noticed i feel particularly strongly about this.
), but like others have said Mary Kelly was a real person and not a Hollywood character or something from a novel. It may not be glorifying or glamourising Mary Kelly, but it is doing just that about Jack the Ripper.
Leave a comment: