'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[Hatchett]

Ally,

If you had a reasoned arguement about the creation that would be fine. But even now you are making personal accusations against the creator who you don't even know.

At the very least that exposes that your arguments are weak because otherwise you would not have to resort to it.

I am sorry that you feel that you are in the minority, but perhaps you should consider that you are not merely stating a view but laying down not only what people should create but making restraints what other people have the right to decide upon.

Like I say, Ally, come down off your thrown and join the rest of us in the real world.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Hatchett;104959]Ally,

If you had a reasoned arguement about the creation that would be fine. But even now you are making personal accusations against the creator who you don't even know.

I have made them. The fact you haven't read them isn't really my problem. But here they are again: This was a REAL woman. She doesn't deserve to be splayed out as the centerpiece in some cartoon ghoul show for the titillation of the puerile masses.

At the very least that exposes that your arguments are weak because otherwise you would not have to resort to it.

Really? My arguments are weak? And that's why you've addressed the arguments rather than the fact you don't like me calling the guy a pervert. Oh wait, you haven't addressed the argument. You haven't addressed the setting or the fact that the "creator" said this was about giving her her name, and yet her name doesn't appear on it ANYWHERE. Let's not address the actual arguments. Let's address ONLY that I think he's a pervert because that's the only thing you can disagree with.

I am sorry that you feel that you are in the minority, but perhaps you should consider that you are not merely stating a view but laying down not only what people should create but making restraints what other people have the right to decide upon.

Nah. I don't think I am in the minority. I just think like with most controversial things, people are laying low so they won't have to defend their opinions because they also think this guy's a freaking perv. And god forbid anyone actually say it aloud.

Like I say, Ally, come down off your thrown and join the rest of us in the real world.

You mean my throne? Nah, it's comfy here.

[Hatchett]

Ally,

I have read your arguments which are purely and solely to do with your reaction to this creation (or work of art.) You are entitled to these.

What you are not entitled to do is to denigrate the reactions of others. We live in a free world.

What you are also not entitled to do is to attack the personality of the the creator, who you do not know, or to attack the personalities of people who view the creation differently.

Your throne may be warm, but you have to becareful that you do not fall into the danger of the quote "The princess and the Prince discuss what is real and what is not!"

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Hatchett;104961]Ally,

What you are not entitled to do is to denigrate the reactions of others. We live in a free world.

You mean like you are denigrating my reactions? If you will look back and actually carefully READ the posts all of them, you will find that the only reactions of others I have attempted to denigrate were the ones that attempted to censor or censure my behavior. Once again, you are doing the very same thing, you are telling me not to do. Don't denigrate my actions, and I won't denigrate yours.

What you are also not entitled to do is to attack the personality of the the creator, who you do not know, or to attack the personalities of people who view the creation differently.

I am entitled to attack the personality of anyone I choose to attack.
And I can't help but notice, you still haven't rebutted anything I have actually said about this work.

For example: if this is about Mary Kelly and putting the focus on her, why is it called McCarthy's Rents and billed as the final victim of Jack the Ripper.

In addition: it is completely and utterly tasteless to use the real life brutalized death of a REAL woman to be the centerpiece of a cartoon monster freak show.

[Hatchett]

Ally,

You are entitled to your view. It is a reaction the same as anyone else's. But different to others, and to mine.

I do not agree that you are entitled to denigrate anyone you choose to. We are fortunate to live a free world where everyone is entitled to respect.

The simple matter here is that I respect your view. The same as I respect others.

Why can't you show the same respect?

A passionate view is a passionate view. Fine. But a passionate need to dictate to others has got to be wrong.

[Ally]

First, no, I don't agree that everyone is entitled to respect. There are many millions of people who are absolutely not entitled to the slightest shred of respect, and I find that idea appalling. No, I don't believe that I should respect those that aren't worthy of it. And I show respect to those I respect. To the other posters on here, I have responded in kind. You have NOT shown me respect. It is not respect to call me Queen Ally and say that I am trying to be the dictator, and to come down off my throne. That's not respect. If you want respect from me, give it.

As with most people, you are very quick to judge the actions of others, but are rather blind to your own. When someone starts telling me how I ought to be behaving as if they were my mother or had the right, that's not respect. When you do that, be prepared to get it in kind. Jen's first response to me, was to tell me to quit demeaning myself. She set the tone for any further discussions.

Now because she's a lot more "nice" than I am, it's easy to forget who started the lack of respect, but I am happy to remind you. In general, I don't start it, I am just a hell of a lot better at it than the rest of you.

And you still have not addressed the points on this "art" that I have made.

Why, if it's all about giving Mary back her name, does her name NOT appear on it?

How can it possibly be acceptable to use the REAL LIFE brutal death of a woman to be the centerpiece of a Halloween freak show.

[Hatchett]

Ally,

I think your response sums you up.

There is nothing more I need say.

You take care.

[babybird67]

Jen's first response to me, was to tell me to quit demeaning myself. She set the tone for any further discussions.


Now because she's a lot more "nice" than I am, it's easy to forget who started the lack of respect, but I am happy to remind you. In general, I don't start it, I am just a hell of a lot better at it than the rest of you.

LOL! I commented to you that shouldnt need to demean yourself with personal insults to make a point. That is not disrespectful. I started posting to this thread after being shown a lack of respect by you who couldnt accept that anyone not sharing your opinion on this piece must be sexually perverted which is obvious from calling the creator of it sexually perverted. So tell yourself you havent started annything if it makes you feel better.

How can it possibly be acceptable to use the REAL LIFE brutal death of a woman to be the centerpiece of a Halloween freak show.

It wasnt a halloween freak show; it was an exhibition of various artistic responses to the theme of 'monster'.

[Ally]

Well you could say how you can possibly think an art installation that's supposed to be about giving mary back her name but fails to mention it is legit.

Or you could say how is it actually acceptable to use the real life brutal death of a woman in a halloween freak show.

But I can understand how those are too difficult so let's focus on me instead.

[Hatchett]

Ally,

Instead of you focussing on the artist, or the people who disagree with you?

Oh come on! Play fair!

[Ally]

Jen,

Up until now, you've at least managed not to be dishonest. But saying you started posting because I implied you were a pervert is just balls. Flat out, BS and not true. You were the first person who made it personal between you and me. I had kept all my comments limited to the author and his works. But tell yourself differently if it makes YOU feel better.

Done with you now.

And since no one can answer my questions about how this is about her but doesn't mention her name or the use of a brutalized real life woman in a halloween freak show. I guess it's clear they have no real argument.

Hatch,

Thought you had nothing more to say? And yeah because this thread is about the artist and the opinions about his art. You are focusing on me and my behavior.

I guess you have no real argument about the artist to defend him or his "art".

[perrymason]

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.

Hi Dave,

I have personally put forward the contention that the body in room 13 was "posed", but based on a more general premise that is within the words definition itself. Things were "placed", and things were "put" in places....but suggesting that the scene was then a canvas of sorts is a leap that the evidence here does not warrant.

The viscera on the table is no different than the viscera over the shoulder of the 3 women cut open in public,...it was material that was in the way and was set out of the way. Simple. Its not as easy to explain a breast and uterus under her head, particularly when it was suggested by the Inquest Coroner that Jack the Ripper killed both Mary Ann and Annie for their uterus, only being successful in a private backyard the second attempt....

Whats clear about the "posing" of Mary Kelly is that her killer took the time required to do those things while he was a killer in a fresh murder scene covered in blood.

Seems a tad trivial to take extra time for considering he would hang if he was caught....but it does seem important if the scene needed to appear as if created by a "Ripper".

Best regards

[Ally]

Seems a tad trivial to take extra time for considering he would hang if he was caught....but it does seem important if the scene needed to appear as if created by a "Ripper".

Best regards

I have read this three times and I am still not certain what you are getting at. Many, many serial killers pose their victims even though, of course, they will hang (or fry or get needled) if they are caught. Are you trying to imply that a serial killer wouldn't pose his victim because of the extra "risk" involved? Because that's not a statement supported by precedent.

PS...I don't think it's particularly posed actually except possibly the hand. Just not sure of the point.

[perrymason]

I have read this three times and I am still not certain what you are getting at. Many, many serial killers pose their victims even though, of course, they will hang (or fry or get needled) if they are caught. Are you trying to imply that a serial killer wouldn't pose his victim because of the extra "risk" involved? Because that's not a statement supported by precedent.

PS...I don't think it's particularly posed actually except possibly the hand. Just not sure of the point.

Hi Ally,

Actually within the definitions of the word "pose" is "to place" or "put", so my point regarding that contention is that it is accurate...things were "placed" and "put" in places other than where they naturally were or would naturally fall into if dislodged sloppily. Marys crime scene has "posed" elements. That doesnt mean that anything is "staged" per se though...meaning that each particular placement is part of a grander picture he has in mind. Each time he "places" something somewhere it may in fact be an independently motivated impulse and a knee jerk decision...like he wanted just Marys head tilted forward for example...that might explain an organ an a mammary gland under her head. There doesnt seem to be a "portrait" that he is constructing..like something to greet the police or to see him off as he leaves. He doesnt seem to be building to a finished product if you will.

But he does likely place her arm back across a hollowed midsection, and he does place the things behind the head.

My suggestion is that the absence of a greater objective in these seemingly bizarre actions is perhaps due to a killer who is unclear about what he is doing in the first place.

When Annie lost her uterus no-one before her had suffered such a fate, but when Mary lost her heart almost every activity that is eventually seen in that room was printed in the papers in the months prior to her death. Other than the incomplete actions, like the partial stripping of both thighs. But the placing viscera about, extracting organs, facial cuts, skin flaps to access the abdomen, all those actions had been in print prior to her murder.

But in almost every instance the earlier placements have benign and logical answers, in that he just moved what was in the way and cut what he wanted out.

But Mary Kelly's crime scene does not show that type of activity...it shows activity that for lack of a better word mimics earlier Ripper crimes, and activities that have no precedent in the prior alleged Ripper murders.

Ive guessed that the reason for that difference may be that one killer is satisfying himself and another killer is emulating the first, but without the same drivers his actions lack importance.

Its food for discussion I figure.

Best regards Ally

[Altered DNA]

Hi Ally,

Actually within the definitions of the word "pose" is "to place" or "put", so my point regarding that contention is that it is accurate...things were "placed" and "put" in places other than where they naturally were or would naturally fall into if dislodged sloppily. Marys crime scene has "posed" elements. That doesnt mean that anything is "staged" per se though...meaning that each particular placement is part of a grander picture he has in mind. Each time he "places" something somewhere it may in fact be an independently motivated impulse and a knee jerk decision...like he wanted just Marys head tilted forward for example...that might explain an organ an a mammary gland under her head. There doesnt seem to be a "portrait" that he is constructing..like something to greet the police or to see him off as he leaves. He doesnt seem to be building to a finished product if you will.

Is it not possible that the mutilations in the earlier crimes were a practice run for the attack on Mary Kelly? Being as she was the only one killed inside, and the fact that he theoretically had as much time as he wanted with her, is she not perhaps the "perfect" murder in his mind? Because of the circumstances of the earlier murders being outside and in public places, he was not allowed the time he needed to finish what he started. Annie Chapman's murder is one that shows signs of posing and arranging the body. Not discounting the natural way in which she fell after the attack, and the fact that he uses similar methods at getting to the internal organs, he still took time to arrange things around her body; the coins, etc.
Like a lot of serial killers, there is an adjustment period during a killing spree where a killer is becoming accustomed to what they are doing, getting used to the sight of blood and the feel of a body and the way weapons work on flesh. In their mind they have an image or fantasy that they are trying to bring to life, so to speak. It takes a while to get it right. The earlier victims are trial runs aimed at achieving that "perfect" synchronization of fantasy and reality. In Mary Jane Kelly he had it all; a secluded place, time to work, and a victim. I wouldn't be surprised if the murder and mutilations took no longer than an hour or two at most, and that he spent more time than that actually arranging her body. There were probably several semen stains present at the scene, either on the sheets or on the floor.


But he does likely place her arm back across a hollowed midsection, and he does place the things behind the head.

My suggestion is that the absence of a greater objective in these seemingly bizarre actions is perhaps due to a killer who is unclear about what he is doing in the first place.

The objective is the fulfillment of the fantasy he has constructed in his own mind. He knows what he is doing, and knows that it is illegal, but doesn't care.

When Annie lost her uterus no-one before her had suffered such a fate, but when Mary lost her heart almost every activity that is eventually seen in that room was printed in the papers in the months prior to her death. Other than the incomplete actions, like the partial stripping of both thighs. But the placing viscera about, extracting organs, facial cuts, skin flaps to access the abdomen, all those actions had been in print prior to her murder.

It's true that a lot of details were printed in the paper, but there is a modus operandi at work as well as a signature that reaches across the crimes and ties them all together. There is also an escalation in the severity of the crimes that culminates in the MJK murder.

But in almost every instance the earlier placements have benign and logical answers, in that he just moved what was in the way and cut what he wanted out.

True. But it's the way that he cuts things out and places them aside that creates an evolving M.O., while the postmortem mutilation shows a developing signature with each successive crime, culminating in the MJK killing.

But Mary Kelly's crime scene does not show that type of activity...it shows activity that for lack of a better word mimics earlier Ripper crimes, and activities that have no precedent in the prior alleged Ripper murders.

I disagree for the reasons stated above.

Ive guessed that the reason for that difference may be that one killer is satisfying himself and another killer is emulating the first, but without the same drivers his actions lack importance.

I've read the theory that none of the crimes are related other than being under the "Jack The Ripper" umbrella, but i truly believe in looking at the crimes and at the increasing mutilations of the bodies there is a pattern that emerges. If they were copycat crimes, I doubt we'd see the time and effort put forth to arrange objects within the immediate area of the murders, including personal items and organs. There was also extensive facial mutilations on several victims which shows a familiarity with them and their killer.

Its food for discussion I figure.

Best regards Ally

Please let me know what you think!

Peace,

Dave