Thank you very much for the questions! If I wasn't so long winded I'd probably get more of them answered by others that have posted. All I can say is that I will get to everyone's questions...promise.
> One question I want to ask Dave is whether he would feel any differently about this MJK piece if it had NOT been created by himself?
Interpreting your question, would I see it in a less favorable light? I would have to say no. I am open to any and all forms of art, and feel I’ve seen my share of what I consider to be poor art, meaning either in poor taste or poor construction. If asked to give my opinion, I’d offer it freely and without malice. I understand art means different things to each individual and you can’t possibly please everyone at all times. I knew while creating this piece some people would think it was exploitative or in bad taste; but as an artist, I can’t be coerced into sanitizing my work in order not to offend EVERYONE. I’m not Walt Disney.
Was it in poor taste to release the Mary Kelly picture in the first place? Maybe it was. Technically, it’s public property. We pay the police officers to take the crime scene photos with our tax dollars; so those photos belong to the public, right? Is anyone’s death really a matter for public consumption when it comes to photographed representations of their final moments? Can an extreme visual representation of someone’s death be construed as art?
I never approached this piece with the intent to create something that would titillate the viewer, although I’m not naïve enough to think some people might not derive some sort of satisfaction from viewing it. I’m well aware there are people out there that are into serial killers like some people are into sports stars or comic book heroes. However, I would like to think they are in the minority of people going to view these exhibits.
Honestly, my sole intent was to create a 3-D version of the famous photograph so that people would be able to walk into it and look around for themselves. This led to the final decision creating the whole thing in monochrome black and white. If my intent had been to appeal to the lowest common denominator, I would have recreated it in full color. In the end I realized it would be too much for the casual viewer and would distract from the original idea of the piece.
We’ve all looked at the photo many times, perhaps hoping to discover something that someone else missed. By doing this, we look right past Mary Jane Kelly. She becomes no more important than scrawls on the wall or the angles of the bed and table. We accept that she’s dead and move right past it, hoping to find some shred of evidence that will give meaning to her death or evidence of her killer.
Has anyone ever asked what the purpose was for initially publishing the photo? What is there to be gained from looking at the mutilated remains of Mary Kelly? Is there not enough detail in the coroner’s report?
All my installation does is allow the viewer the chance to walk around the room and see the photo from every angle. If I had the skills to recreate the photo in a 3-D modeling program I would have done that instead, but that’s not my skill set. I’m more into drawing sketches, sculpting clay, making molds, casting silicone and airbrushing. I recreated that scene the only way I knew how…
Dave knows he is a nice sane happily married guy who DIDN'T create this for prurient reasons- but what if some complete stranger created this, someone whose personality and motives were unknown and had to be deduced solely from viewing his creation? Someone might really be a creep into torture porn?
> Would Dave -or his wife- want to walk in there unawares and be personally confronted with this piece? How would it affect them?
The installation is billed as JTR’s final murder, so it’s not as if the viewer enters the space completely unprepared for what they are about to see. At first glance it’s a bit startling. If the viewer knows anything at all about JTR and the Mary Kelly photo I think they might be intrigued with the possibility of seeing the scene from any angle they can imagine. And if the viewer has only basic knowledge of JTR and his crimes this installation allows them a glimpse into the savagery of his murders. You feel as though you’ve stumbled upon an actual crime scene. The lack of color in the space intruded upon by a person whose clothes and self are in full color makes the viewer feel like an intruder or a ghost.
>What if this piece DIDN'T represent Mary Kelly from 1888, but instead represented a more recent murder victim like a member of the Otero Family or a victim of Jeffrey Dahmer? Would this alter everyone's perception of it, would they react very differently?
I think people would react differently just because of the legend that has been built up about JTR throughout the years. We KNOW who Dahmer was and we know who BTK is, so there’s no real mystery there for people to contemplate. Barring some miracle from on high we’ll NEVER know who Jack The Ripper was, which is why he still fascinates us. If the crimes had been solved 100 years ago and it turned out he was just some sociopathic slum dweller, he’d be just another guy like Bundy, Manson or Gacy. We have pictures of Dahmer and BTK. We know who they are and what they’ve done. Thanks to research we know all about their lives and through psychology and profiling we know why they committed their crimes. There’s no longer any mystery to those killers. Applying the profiling traits to the type of person JTR was brings us no closer to WHO he was…
I think that if I had recreated any other murder scene from any other serial killer it would have been less interesting, maybe even boring and passé. In this day and age it’s all been seen and done.
If you look at the photo of Mary Kelly, you can see that she has been posed by Jack The Ripper after her death. He positioned her in a purposeful way knowing how she would be seen by those who found her. Did he move her limbs about looking for the right angle for maximum shock and horror? Obviously, he did. This was his art. It was his calling card. “Here I am!” It was practiced on all of his victims in one way or another. Placing coins and rings and positioning the bodies. It was all part of the great and secret show. Mary Kelly is the only piece of his “work” photographed before being carted off to the mortuary. She alone stands the test of time as a testament to his acts…as proof of his existence and his work. Even though we know her name, when we see that picture the first thing that comes to mind is “Jack The Ripper”. He's supplanted her identity with his own through sheer force.
More to the point, I think that some people would still be angry about using the deaths of others in an artistic display setting and some would be intrigued. Some would call it art and some would call it crap.
I'm sincerely interested in hearing Dave's response to this, and I'd also like to hear the thoughts of others.
Thanks and best regards, Archaic[/QUOTE]
Thank you! And thanks to everyone for their comments, good or bad!
Peace,
Dave Allen
......
it doesn't look good,does it??
Leave a comment: