Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[Elamarna]

Hi El
what is the "real tangible evidence" that sickert was the ripper??

No again you misunderstand me Abby,

Not that he was the ripper but some supporting evidence. Such as the sketches suggest he was in London for some of the period and the evidence on the paper, which Cornwall claims some of the letters were written on.

That is far more than the real crackpot theories ever have.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

I'm afraid I don't follow Steve! If the place is the Collins music hall and the date is "the date of that particular sketch" then the sketch was sketched on the date on place inscribed on the sketch wasn't it? In other words, a sketch dated and inscribed "Collins, 28 Sept 1888" would have been sketched at Collins Music Hall on 28 September 1888 wouldn't it?

Or am I missing something here?

I think hes saying he didn't actually have to physically have been in the music hall when it was dated-that an original sketch could have been done earlier when he was actually in the hall and that other follow up sketches from the original might have been done later-like in his studio for example-and dated on the day he finished that one.

[Elamarna]

I might add that Wendy Baron appears to interpret such sketches the same way. In her 2006 book, with reference to a painting of Queenie Lawrence dated "c. 1888", information is provided that there are sketches of Queenie Lawrence inscribed and dated as follows: "Bedford Jan 19 88", "Jan 24 88" and "Jan 24 88". Baron comments that Sickert "began to study her [Queenie Lawrence] consistently from January 1888 when he saw her at the Bedford Music Hall". I see nothing in Baron to suggest that Sickert's sketches were not done at the place and on the date stated on the sketches.

I think in that case we are looking at an on going study rather than follow up sketches. So I concur with you.
However the approach which was suggested and which I suspect may also have been true is not unknown with artists.

I agree I see no reason to doubt the sketches Cornwall uses in her book to support the argument.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I think hes saying he didn't actually have to physically have been in the music hall when it was dated-that an original sketch could have been done earlier when he was actually in the hall and that other follow up sketches from the original might have been done later-like in his studio for example-and dated on the day he finished that one.

David

Abby has that correct. I am talking of what could happen in general terms.
However in the particular cases Cornwall uses believe some if not all are originalso.

Sorry if I was not clear.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

No again you misunderstand me Abby,

Not that he was the ripper but some supporting evidence. Such as the sketches suggest he was in London for some of the period and the evidence on the paper, which Cornwall claims some of the letters were written on.

That is far more than the real crackpot theories ever have.

Steve

OK got it. I see what you mean by evidence now.

but that being said, all it is is evidence that some of the ripper letters were written on the same type of paper he used.
so we have hundreds of hoax letter writers and paper that was sold to what? thousands of people? how can she or her expert conclude that he was probably the letter writer of some of them based on that?

and the dated sketches only show that he was probably in London on or near those two dates.

sure its evidence of something-but hardly evidence for being the ripper.

I mean is that really "far more" "evidence" that the real crackpot theories have?

and Davids already pretty much debunking a lot of her ideas. It makes me wonder about the quality of her research and ability to objectively and correctly analyze material.

[David Orsam]

I think hes saying he didn't actually have to physically have been in the music hall when it was dated-that an original sketch could have been done earlier when he was actually in the hall and that other follow up sketches from the original might have been done later-like in his studio for example-and dated on the day he finished that one.

You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.

[Elamarna]

OK got it. I see what you mean by evidence now.

but that being said, all it is is evidence that some of the ripper letters were written on the same type of paper he used.
so we have hundreds of hoax letter writers and paper that was sold to what? thousands of people? how can she or her expert conclude that he was probably the letter writer of some of them based on that?

and the dated sketches only show that he was probably in London on or near those two dates.

sure its evidence of something-but hardly evidence for being the ripper.

I mean is that really "far more" "evidence" that the real crackpot theories have?

and Davids already pretty much debunking a lot of her ideas. It makes me wonder about the quality of her research and ability to objectively and correctly analyze material.

Abby the paper it is argued by her expert is a very limited run. So far I have seen no counter argument to that.

You are right David has argued against some of her suggestions. But in reality it's only a few.

And you are correct I do not think it is evidence for Sickert being the ripper either.


Steve

[Elamarna]

You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.

In that particular case I would agree with you David

Again what we are doing here is looking at a suggestion and seeing if is viable at all. Thats to me how research should progress.


You obviously say not a viable argument. I on the other hand do not rule out the possibility on some sketches, but not actually on the ones used.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

You mean sketches of sketches? Well aside from the fact that I don't believe that Wendy Baron says he ever did this type of thing (which is what sleekviper claimed) so that there is no reason to think that it was Sickert's working practice, it would mean that he must have made sketches in situ which he destroyed, having made further sketches of those sketches at a later date. And this would only even work as an alibi destroyer if for some reason he made those later sketches while abroad. No, I'm afraid I regard this suggestion as equally implausible. A sketch saying "Collins, 28 Sept 1888"must surely mean that he was at the Collins Music Hall on 28 Sept 1888.

I agree.

[Elamarna]

I agree.

Abby

Glad we all agree on the end result even if David and I on this occasion are applying slightly different reasoning..

Steve

[sleekviper]

Yes, he made sketches of sketches. He imported elements of previous sketches into what he was planning to use as a final piece. Some elements are used multiple times, some not at all. He would not rework what was done, he would create a new sketch. Which is why there are 166 known Katie Lawrence, and 148 Queenie Lawrence. No relation to each other. Which is why he would create a final composite before the actual painting, to make sure all the elements worked as he planned. That requires sketches of sketches.

[GUT]

I have no idea what Sickert's practices were but have spent most of my life around artists in one form or another and one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that they all do things differently..

Some would do a study (you might call it a sketch) and later do further sketches working on fleshing out details from the original (sometimes returning to the location othertimes not), now one might date those studies the date they finished that particular study, but still use the first title, others would carry the date of the original study over, yet others would update the date when they revisited the location.

So in a nutshell my experience would lead me to put little weight on the date of a study unless I was intimately familiar with how the artist in question worked.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Abby,

I simply don't have the werewithall to buy and read every suspect book that comes out.

No need to buy it. Every public library in America has Patricia Cornwell's books. If you pay taxes you've already bought it, might as well read.

Roy

[David Orsam]

Yes, he made sketches of sketches. He imported elements of previous sketches into what he was planning to use as a final piece. Some elements are used multiple times, some not at all. He would not rework what was done, he would create a new sketch. Which is why there are 166 known Katie Lawrence, and 148 Queenie Lawrence. No relation to each other. Which is why he would create a final composite before the actual painting, to make sure all the elements worked as he planned. That requires sketches of sketches.

Sleekviper, your post begins with two statements about Sickert:

1. He made sketches of sketches.

2. He imported elements of previous sketches into what he was planning to use as a final piece.

But 2 does not, of course, follow from 1. There is no doubt, I'm sure, that Sickert incorporated elements from his sketches into his final pieces. That, after all, is the whole point of the sketches. But where is the evidence that he made sketches of sketches?

Earlier you told us you were getting this from Wendy Baron's 2006 book (although you make no mention of her in your most recent post, despite my challenge, repeated in posts #173, #192 and #201, that she doesn’t support what you are saying). Can you identify where she says this? More to the point, where does she say that he would date these sketches in a misleading fashion so that the sketches were not made at the place and on the date annotated on those sketches?

In fact, I suggest the direct opposite is true. Not only does Wendy Baron herself rely on Sickert's annotated dates and locations when she says that he made sketches of Queenie Lawrence at the Bedford Music Hall in January 1888 (as I pointed out in #192 above) but there is further clear evidence that she believed that Sickert's sketches of music hall performers were drawn in the music halls (and not in his studio):

EXAMPLE 1

On p.166 she says:

"It is not always possible to identify the artistes portrayed by Sickert. Sometimes he inscribed their names on his sketches; sometimes he inscribed the dates and the names of the music halls in which he drew them."

That makes clear that the sketches on which he included the music hall names were drawn in those music halls.

EXAMPLE 2

Also on p.166 (in respect of undated sketches of Katie Lawrence) she says:

"Katie Lawrence left England to tour Australia in January 1888 and was away until May 1889. Therefore, all studies of Katie Lawrence must have been drawn in 1887, at Gatti’s in May and July (when she appeared there) and/or in other halls at different times that year."

If Wendy Baron believed that Sickert made "sketches of sketches" she could not possibly have written the above because the studies could easily have been drawn by Sickert in 1888 or 1889, in his studio, based on his earlier sketches. The fact that she not only says they must have been drawn in 1887 but believes that they were drawn in the music halls (not in a studio) demonstrates, sleekviper, that she does not support your theory at all.

EXAMPLE 3

In a footnote (42) on p.22:

"Queenie Lawrence was not advertised in the music-hall gazettes as engaged at Gatti’s early in June (the drawings are variously dated 4, 6, 7 and 8 June 1888) but it is possible she made an unscheduled appearance, perhaps as a late stand-in for a colleague."

This is an absolute clincher. If Baron believed that the drawings on Sickert's sketches did not relate to the dates they were drawn in the music halls she would not have written that sentence bearing in mind that there would have been an obvious alternative explanation, namely that they were all drawn in Sickert's studio in the period 4-8 June based on earlier in situ sketches. But she does not even raise this as a possibility.

Yes, Wendy Baron says Sickert made hundreds of sketches of Katie and Queenie Lawrence but this means no more than he made lots of sketches in the music halls. After all, she tell us (p.167): "If Sickert was interested in an artiste, he would follow her from hall to hall on the same night."

Sleekviper, you can hold whatever theory you want about Sickert but your first post in this thread gave the impression that you were doing so based on the authority of Wendy Baron, the renowned Sickert expert. I think I have demonstrated conclusively that you do not have that authority but feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.

[Henry Flower]

David, you're right, but so is Sleekviper.

As a professional artist (mostly portraits) and a long-time admirer of Sickert as an artist, I have a few books and periodicals on his work. Baron, of course, but a couple of others too. I have before me now a catalogue to Tate Liverpool's exhibition "W.R.Sickert - Drawings and Paintings 1890-1942", and also something I found long ago in an antiquarian booksellers, "Image: 7 - A Periodical of the Visual Arts", published by Art and Technics Ltd, Spring 1952, featuring an article on Sickert's Drawings by Gabriel White.

What is clear is that Sickert not only made sketches from life and then used them in his final compositions, he would also go back to the studio, finish them, or rework them completely, or put them aside, or make second versions of them even years later - still just sketches for the sake of sketches. He would take elements of his sketches and combine them with other sketches, or with photographs, or images from media.

So you're now wondering why I say you're right? Well, usually, mostly, very often, you can look at a Sickert sketch made in the music hall, for instance, and the pen or pencil work has a terseness and a brevity that betrays the fact that it was made rapidly from life. When he is reworking things or re-sketching sketches there is often an added heaviness or a deliberateness, as one would expect; a trained eye can usually tell the difference between an exercise in observation and an attempt to craft a significant work using that material.

You're right in that yes, he would indeed make hundreds of first-hand observational drawings of the same artistes, many of them similar, seemingly based on the same moment, but perhaps one is of the same song performed by the same artiste the following night. I think he made so many music hall sketches that we can say with confidence that the overwhelming majority of them must have been made in-situ and once only.

He was absolutely prolific, and chaotic. Dating his sketches with any certainty is a job for a scholar, not for me, I just thought I'd add my 2p worth.