'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[Altered DNA]

GRISTLE,
If you have the time, I wish you would visit Domy Books and see the installation. I would greatly appreciate the opinion of someone else seeing it firsthand as opposed to just the photos, whether you like the installation or not. And if you'd like to meet me there and talk about it, I'd be more than happy to do that as well.

Peace,

Dave Allen

P.S. The installation will be up until Dec. 3rd

[Altered DNA]

Archaic,

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

[babybird67]

hello Dave

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.

Quite true. And to suggest it should be sanitized or coerced into rules smacks of censorship to me. I am glad you did not allow the possibility of negative reception in some quarters deter you from this project.

Was it in poor taste to release the Mary Kelly picture in the first place?

Excellent question. Also relevant to the description of your representation of this image as somehow reprehensible, yet the continued depiction of it in reprints, and indeed the exceptionally detailed verbal descriptions of it in coroner's reports and books about JTR for sale throughout the ages seem to escape censure in some quarters and are not considered as gratutitous at all.

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?

One would have to refer to one subject only to answer this point: the Crucifixtion. Portrayed over centuries in sculptures, paintings, friezes etc. I am not a believer myself, but Christ was a man, who can be historically placed, who was brutally tormented and crucified, like many other men. Does it make the whole of civilization perverted to consistently reference this act in works of art over the centuries? I don't think so. At the risk of being called fluffy (honest i have cleaned out my belly button lately ) i have found some of these depictions incredibly moving to view. No, i can't quantify what it has given me in scientific terms, and yes it is fluffy to reference emotions, but i am a humanist in the Arnoldian sense of the word when it comes to the Arts...i have cried over Tess of the D'urbervilles...i've even cried over Dumbo (can films be art? don't answer that...this particular reference to this particular film was facetious!)...representations...art...are made to create an emotional response in the viewer. So yes...i believe if the subject is treated with the correct amount of respect and not done to titilate, I believe strongly that it is not automatically a forbidden subject of 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.

Absolutely spot on. I appreciate your intention was serious and sobering and that comes over to me. I think the decision to represent the exhibit without the use of colour (or color) was absolutely the correct decision. I think that decision alone stands as testament that the image was NOT meant to be gratuitous or a spectacle or to titillate in any way. I have thought a lot about this and my reaction to it since the whole controversy on the boards sprang up, and i am totally comfortable with the fact that it is clear to me what your intentions were and that they were not reprehensible or questionable in any way morally. An artist cannot legislate his actions according to the lowest common denominator or how a few twisted people might respond to his work. Again, to espouse this view would be to espouse some kind of system of censorship, which would stifle...no, actually, would murder...creativity before it had even screamed its first birthing cry into the world. Is censorship the way to go...absolutely not.

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.

Showing artistic judgement that is spot on in my opinion.

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.

Ah, now here we come to examine how your art moved me so much. You are, sadly, absolutely right about this. I've pored over that image at the wall, trying to discern the famous 'FM' allegedly splashed across the back wall. I've pored over a separate section trying to discern the pile of flesh/the bolster on the table. I've looked a long time at her face, trying to discern what was left of it...can i see an eyelid? Is that a part of her nose? You have absolutely changed my perception of that photograph forever, along with my perception of Mary as a human being. Already, i was less interested in Mary, in a kind of positive discrimination in favour of the other victims of Jack...why should i pay her any attention? Everyone else thinks 'there's something about Mary'...that she is the 'key' to the whole series of murders, that her death was more tragic because she was younger and prettier than the others...i often skipped past her, not believing she was anything more than the final random victim in a series of horrific murders...one more unfortunate on the canonical list, as it were.

You allowed her to speak to me, Dave, and for that i am grateful beyond expression. I still believe her death is no more tragic than the deaths of her fellow unfortunates...but what you have taught me is an invaluable lesson i feel i was unlikely to learn via any other route; what you have taught me is that she is no less tragic than the others, and that in my odd, almost unconscious act of discrimination, i had forgotten, or perhaps not even acknowledged that. You took away the letters on the wall and the diary, you took away the calculations of the angles, you took away the arguments about what particular image was actually Mary or actually bedding/clothing/something else...you did strip it back: you took away everything else and left us Mary. I 'saw' her for the first time. That is what shocked me, moved me, stunned me....that i had looked at it, at 'her', so many many times, but when i returned to the photograph after seeing your representation, i saw Mary Jane Kelly for the very first time.

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.

I also think this makes the viewer question exactly why s/he is looking at it; questions the motives of who made this? What for? What am i getting out of this? Why am i here, experiencing this? What does the experience do for me?

I actually support Ally in her act of asking these questions. I think they are valid, important questions to ask of art. What i profoundly disagree with her about is the evaluation she has made of your motives and of what the general effect of your work would be. I think anyone seeing that installation in public and exhibiting any signs of being remotely titillated by it would be given extremely short shrift by the majority of other viewers. It is clear its primary intention is serious and sobering, and i credit the majority of people who would go to see it, or who do view it over the internet, with the intelligence, both emotional and intellectual, to respond to it in a serious and responsible manner, as most of us do with the photograph it derives from, and the accounts of the murders themselves in words, which are no less representations of what happened to Mary.

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.

Absolutely. I am amazed your work was able to evince such a response from me, when i knew exactly what i was about to witness. The image itself was not new; what you did with it, how you were able to evince that reaction from me, was utterly unexpected, original, thought-provoking, eye-opening. I am grateful for that. I have learned so much about something i thought i knew already. Good art does that for people...not for everyone...it would not be art if its reception were not as subjectively individual as its creation...but to be able to do that to just a few people, even just one person, is not easy, i don't think.

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.

Absolutely. You gave it back to her. And i, for one, thank you for that.

best wishes

Jen

[Ally]

Was it in poor taste to release the Mary Kelly picture in the first place?

So your argument is, if it was in poor taste to release it in the first place, any further tasteless uses of said photograph is made acceptable? I realize you don't like to address the subject of INTENT, but the INTENT of your piece was entertainment. A set piece in a cheezy, cartoonish Monster show where people draw cartoon draculas and bug eyed brains. And it doesn't matter about how this photo was used one hundred years ago or two years ago or last week. What matters is how you use it. And you used it for a freak show set piece.

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?

Depends on what the purpose is or what it's supposed to say. Is there any greater meaning for it? Someone made the ludicrous comparison of attempting to equate you making an "artistic' rendition of a brutalized spread eagled butchered woman with artistic images of the crucifixion. I mean really. CoME ON. There is absolutely NO comparison. Whether you believe that Jesus Christ was a savior or not, his death has global impact upon the philosophies and shaping of the modern world. Not to mention (according to his disciples) his death was planned and intentional and MEANT to be a global transcendence. So his death, was MEANT to be put out there, for all to see and witness and inspire. HE made a choice. If we are talking about single individuals being picked out for artistic works. I don't think Mary would appreciate having people walk into her splayed out butchered legs because you wanted to give people an opportunity to walk into her room and stand there over her butchered body.

No offense, but Jack the Ripper wasn't that important. Neither was Mary Kelly. Her death deserves some dignity. And allowing the drunk yokels in halloween masks to go in and gape at her, with their tasteless comments and their party mentality is just ...vomit inducing.

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.

That's pandering and a joke right? I mean I looked at all the other pieces that were on display over the last 3 monster shows. And the juvenile cartoon fan-boy gross out gore was predominant. You are deluding yourself if you think that the people attracted to this exhibit, in their cos-play get ups would go in and look at this piece in anyway different than they looked at the other blood drenched naked woman renditions. But you know, we all have to tell ourselves things, to justify what we do.

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.

Maybe that's how you see her and that's what you do, but don't speak for the rest of us. Maybe you "artists" see her as nothing more than a flesh puzzle that you can break down and reassemble for "art", but there are those of us who have NEVER lost sight of the fact that they were real women with all the flaws of real women. But REAL women. Who don't deserve to be splayed out for drunken cos-play dipshits to take a gander at.

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.

Then if it's all been seen and done, what was the point? The people going to view your exhibition have all seen it and done it, so it didn't matter WHAT you chose to put out there, it's all been seen and done? The viewers will be the same regardless of the picture you chose to do or whether you created something fake from whole cloth or a recreation. Don't attempt to justify this by saying "the modern has all been seen and done". So has this. You just wanted the grossest most butchered photo possible that you could POSSIBLY slap a sheen of respectability on by saying it was from the Ripper crimes. The age lends an air of credibility and a distancing from pure sensationalism that a more recent crime would not.

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.

Uh no she doesn't. There were FOUR OTHER WOMEN who were killed by this man. I realize she's the only one who interests you, because she's the only one with a really gross photograph that you can turn into "art", but no, she's not standing alone. And she's not the only. And by saying she's "proof of his existence and his work"' you've made her into an AWARD for him, a monument to his achievement. Way to go. What you did didn't give her back her name or her individuality. You just said it exactly right. You see it as testament to HIS Existence and HIS work. Thanks for finally being honest about it.

[John Bennett]

Hoping to avoid any debate over whether this is 'art' or 'entertainment', but does anybody here feel that this is yet another singling out of Mary Kelly for some form of 'glorification'? As Ally mentions, there WERE other victims and yet there has been for a long time a rather cloying 'exhaltation' of Mary Kelly.

People do pretty paintings of her as they imagined her to look in life and leave them by her graveside with gin bottles and stuff like that. There are those who claim some 'empathy' with her or even confess to feeling like they 'know' her, none of which I understand, to be honest. It's all rather creepy.

[Ally]

Hoping to avoid any debate over whether this is 'art' or 'entertainment',

Chicken

[John Bennett]

Chicken

Cluck cluck squaarrk.

[Ally]

Oh and just one more question for Dave. Since this "exhibition" is all about focusing on Mary and giving her back her name, can you explain this simple little puzzle I have.

The title of this exhibition is this: McCarthy’s Rents
26 Dorset Street #13, Miller’s Court

And you have said this:

The installation is billed as JTR’s final murder

So where precisely IS her name in this?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

does anybody here feel that this is yet another singling out of Mary Kelly for some form of 'glorification'?

Yes.

And it's one of the most annoying things about this case.

[JennyL]

Yes.

And it's one of the most annoying things about this case.

But surely in this instance it's because of the existence of the extremely famous photograph of the body in situ? It's one of the most famous(if not the most famous) crime scene photographs in existence, in tandem with and famous because it's the work of the most famous serial killer in modern history. Isn't that the real distinction?

Where in any of that this is a "glorification" of Mary Kelly? Not glamourising or glorifying at all that I can see. Sympathising, maybe(that's the spirit in which I look at it, anyway). If it had been Annie Chapman in the bed in the photo it'd doubtless be Annie Chapman whose undue fame among ripper victims is discussed.

Actually, now that it's been brought up-where are all the examples of her "glorification"? Where are the plays, songs and other special tribute given her, besides being "the last"(apparently though not provably true) or the "youngest"(ditto) victim of a serial killer(maybe)?

[Ally]

There are at least two plays I know about where people chose to focus on her specifically(they were crap and never went anywhere obviously, but there are at least two). The main character in all the movies? Mary Kelly and Abberline. It's not Annie and Abberline. Take a look at the "poetry". If it's specific to a single person, it's about Mary or Jack. The only song I know of specific to any other victim is Dark Annie written by one of her descendants. Other than that, if it's random people, they are wondering "what songs fit her" what songs make you think of her, etc. There are people who write poems to her and say that she is their "soul mate". Freaks come on here and say they are the reincarnation of Mary Kelly or Jack. Never Catherine Eddowes or Polly Nichols.

If you aren't aware of this phenomena in Ripperology, you haven't been studying it long enough.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Where in any of that this is a "glorification" of Mary Kelly? Not glamourising or glorifying at all that I can see. Sympathising, maybe(that's the spirit in which I look at it, anyway).

If it was part of a reconstruction or done for forensic reasons then it would be alright (and for what it's worth I think the guy has done a stellar and intricate job on his exhibit), but as part of a Halloween 'prop'? It's a bit... tasteless? I'm not being a prude or whatever, and if truth be told I probably wouldn't have given a sh*t before having read about the case properly rather than going by whatever I knew from the London Dungeon (which has done the same tacky thing come to think of it ), 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.

Though I do find it annoying that only Mary Kelly (and Abberline like Ally said) is focused on. They're always treated as if they're characters (and the main ones of the show at that!). It's a bit disrespectful to the other victims of the case because it's as though they don't matter [as much].

[jmenges]

but as part of a Halloween 'prop'? It's a bit... tasteless?

No need to put a question mark. As part of a Halloween display...tasteless.

I agree with Ally's opinion 100% on this subject.

JM

[jmenges]

Let us all see a silicon version of Josephine Otero hung by the neck from a pipe in her basement with her 11 year old panties pulled down.

Maybe a little infant toy baby representing Francis Kent, throat slit and stuffed in an out house (painted white for affect, of course).

How about a model of Nancy Clutter after she was raped and shot-gunned in her bedroom in Holcomb, Kansas. Looks pretty gory from the photos, and she's in a bed for a plus.

I'd really like to see a recreation of Orange-Socks...gosh, in that case too, I've only had the photo to work from.

Get a kiddie pool and put a mannequin in it...instant Dorothy Blackburn.

We could pull off a whole exhibit of the Speck student-nurses murders if we only had the space.

Just some suggestions.

JM

[jmenges]

We could pull off a whole exhibit of the Speck student-nurses murders if we only had the space.

I, in my artistic temperament, forgot...

The above murder victims names are:

Gloria Davy
Patricia Matusek
Nina Schmale
Pamela Wilkening
Suzanne Farris
Mary Ann Jordan
Merlita Gargullo
Valentina Pasion




JM