Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2

[Fisherman]

So much for "That is all I have to say for now"!

Fisherman, you were most certainly NOT challenging my certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from because I hadn't posted in this thread when you made your post #160, which is what we have been discussing.

What happened is that you responded to sleekviper's post as it if it was a major discovery, exclaiming "Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things." Even worse is that you went further than anything sleekviper said by claiming that "it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of." Nothing said by sleekviper indicated that Sickert might have been in France on September 28 and October 5 (as opposed to anywhere else in the world). But clearly you leapt on the possibility that Sickert might not have been in London, loving the idea that Cornwell's certainty was misplaced.

As it happens, when I mentioned you earlier, I was defending you because I felt you had been being misled by sleekviper's suggestion that Wendy Baron was supporting the notion that Sickert might not have been in London on those dates. However, as I have demonstrated, she does not say any such thing.

You can speculate all you like about what the dates on the sketches mean but it is no more than ill-informed layman opinion. The expert opinion of Wendy Baron, as I have demonstrated, is that the sketches must prove that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. There can be no reasonable doubt about this and any speculative unfounded argument to the contrary is simply not credible.

And I am answering AGAIN!

I wrote France, but I could have written Transylvania. It was France as in "anywhere else than London".

What Sleekviper suggested WOULD put a different slant on things, and that has not changed.

My speculation, as you call it, is not "ill-informed laymans opinion" - there are artists who work like this. I never said that I thought Sickert would have - I instead acknowledged that I am not familiar with his working methods.

My own stance is that there seems to be a clear possibility that Sickert WAS in London and drew his sketches there. It is not a certainty, but a very good suggestion.

Now I am going to run again, David. Misleadings, misrepresentations, ignorance and misplaced arrogance has always made me do that. Today is no exception.

[Abby Normal]

Because the expert, Wendy Baron, effectively tells us that he didn't do strange things like that and it is clear from her book that we can rely on the annotations as showing that the sketches were drawn in the locations and on the dates stated.

While you can always throw up theoretical possibilities, I can only repeat there can be no reasonable doubt that Sickert was in Islington on 28 September and 5 October 1888. You won't have failed to notice that this is the test of proof at criminal trial level.

thanks David
your probably right. I agree its somewhere between no reasonable doubt and 100% certain. LOL! : )

would love to see more of your research on it!!

[David Orsam]

HI David
How do we know he didn't make an original sketch earlier than 28 September while in the music hall, and then at a later time re drew the sketch (possibly somewhere else)on 28 sept but put the date of 28 September on it marking the date of when it was re drawn? I don't know just throwing ideas out there-I just don't know how we can be so certain that sketches with that date on it absolutely confirm he was there on that date.
He more than likely was but can we really be 100% certain??

Because the expert, Wendy Baron, effectively tells us that he didn't do strange things like that and it is clear from her book that we can rely on the annotations as showing that the sketches were drawn in the locations and on the dates stated.

While you can always throw up theoretical possibilities, I can only repeat there can be no reasonable doubt that Sickert was in Islington on 28 September and 5 October 1888. You won't have failed to notice that this is the test of proof at criminal trial level.

[Abby Normal]

So much for "That is all I have to say for now"!

Fisherman, you were most certainly NOT challenging my certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from because I hadn't posted in this thread when you made your post #160, which is what we have been discussing.

What happened is that you responded to sleekviper's post as it if it was a major discovery, exclaiming "Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things." Even worse is that you went further than anything sleekviper said by claiming that "it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of." Nothing said by sleekviper indicated that Sickert might have been in France on September 28 and October 5 (as opposed to anywhere else in the world). But clearly you leapt on the possibility that Sickert might not have been in London, loving the idea that Cornwell's certainty was misplaced.

As it happens, when I mentioned you earlier, I was defending you because I felt you had been being misled by sleekviper's suggestion that Wendy Baron was supporting the notion that Sickert might not have been in London on those dates. However, as I have demonstrated, she does not say any such thing.

You can speculate all you like about what the dates on the sketches mean but it is no more than ill-informed layman opinion. The expert opinion of Wendy Baron, as I have demonstrated, is that the sketches must prove that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. There can be no reasonable doubt about this and any speculative unfounded argument to the contrary is simply not credible.

HI David
How do we know he didn't make an original sketch earlier than 28 September while in the music hall, and then at a later time re drew the sketch (possibly somewhere else)on 28 sept but put the date of 28 September on it marking the date of when it was re drawn? I don't know just throwing ideas out there-I just don't know how we can be so certain that sketches with that date on it absolutely confirm he was there on that date.
He more than likely was but can we really be 100% certain??

[David Orsam]

I´ve rarely read a more idiotic post - but then again, it IS written by you, so it was expected.

I know quite well what I said - that YOUR certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from - is no certain thing if Sleekviper is correct.

That does not mean that Cornwell must be wrong - for example, even if there ARE numerous sketches with the same motive and done on different days, it still remains that the ones Cornwell have could be done on the establishments named on the day they are dated. Ergo, Sickert can have been in London on the dates mentioned on the sketches.

I would say, however, that we can NOT be 100 per cent certain that the sketches prove that Sickert was on the places named and depicted on the sketches. As I said before, I am no Sickert specialist, but generally speaking, any artist could make a series of sketches, all under the same name but with different dates. Therefore, Sickert COULD (once again, I am not familiar with his manner of working) have made a series of sketches with the text "Music Hall X, 1 Oct 1888", "Music Hall X, 2 Oct 1888" and so on; a common name, but varying dates.
As I say, this is just a generalized suggestion that could provide another solution to things than yours.

Now I am leaving you to your sad delusions about my running. Don´t forget to put your extra roomy hat on when you go out.

So much for "That is all I have to say for now"!

Fisherman, you were most certainly NOT challenging my certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from because I hadn't posted in this thread when you made your post #160, which is what we have been discussing.

What happened is that you responded to sleekviper's post as it if it was a major discovery, exclaiming "Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things." Even worse is that you went further than anything sleekviper said by claiming that "it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of." Nothing said by sleekviper indicated that Sickert might have been in France on September 28 and October 5 (as opposed to anywhere else in the world). But clearly you leapt on the possibility that Sickert might not have been in London, loving the idea that Cornwell's certainty was misplaced.

As it happens, when I mentioned you earlier, I was defending you because I felt you had been being misled by sleekviper's suggestion that Wendy Baron was supporting the notion that Sickert might not have been in London on those dates. However, as I have demonstrated, she does not say any such thing.

You can speculate all you like about what the dates on the sketches mean but it is no more than ill-informed layman opinion. The expert opinion of Wendy Baron, as I have demonstrated, is that the sketches must prove that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. There can be no reasonable doubt about this and any speculative unfounded argument to the contrary is simply not credible.

[Fisherman]

I understand why you want to run away again Fisherman. The fact is that you have been saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. It's basically exactly the same thing as I said originally but you felt your usual need to quibble with pointlessly.

I want to stress that you are wrong because we CAN be sure that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. That is the information we are given by Sickert on his sketches.

I´ve rarely read a more idiotic post - but then again, it IS written by you, so it was expected.

I know quite well what I said - that YOUR certainty that the sketches were from the occasions they seemed to be from - is no certain thing if Sleekviper is correct.

That does not mean that Cornwell must be wrong - for example, even if there ARE numerous sketches with the same motive and done on different days, it still remains that the ones Cornwell have could be done on the establishments named on the day they are dated. Ergo, Sickert can have been in London on the dates mentioned on the sketches.

I would say, however, that we can NOT be 100 per cent certain that the sketches prove that Sickert was on the places named and depicted on the sketches. As I said before, I am no Sickert specialist, but generally speaking, any artist could make a series of sketches, all under the same name but with different dates. Therefore, Sickert COULD (once again, I am not familiar with his manner of working) have made a series of sketches with the text "Music Hall X, 1 Oct 1888", "Music Hall X, 2 Oct 1888" and so on; a common name, but varying dates.
As I say, this is just a generalized suggestion that could provide another solution to things than yours.

Now I am leaving you to your sad delusions about my running. Don´t forget to put your extra roomy hat on when you go out.

[David Orsam]

My problem with your summary is that it is wrong.

I am not saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in September/October 1888. I am saying that if Sleekviper is correct - and I am not saying that he is or that he is not - then we cannot be sure that the sketches from the music halls were drawn and dated the same day as Sickert visited the establishments.

It is a more subtle approach to the issue than the one you suggest on my behalf. Far from concluding that it is a closed case, I leave it open.

And far from representing me correctly, you are doing the opposite.

That is all I have to say for now - I am not going to spend time on Casebook for some time, unless something really interesting surfaces.

I understand why you want to run away again Fisherman. The fact is that you have been saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. It's basically exactly the same thing as I said originally but you felt your usual need to quibble with pointlessly.

I want to stress that you are wrong because we CAN be sure that Sickert was in London on 28 September and 5 October 1888. That is the information we are given by Sickert on his sketches.

[Fisherman]

Yes, Fisherman, that is precisely why I summarised your position as being that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. Isn't that correct? You have confirmed that you said that it is not certain that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of so it follows that, on the basis sleekviper was correct (which you were assuming he was), Cornwell must have been wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on those dates. So what's your problem with my summary?

My problem with your summary is that it is wrong.

I am not saying that Cornwell is wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in September/October 1888. I am saying that if Sleekviper is correct - and I am not saying that he is or that he is not - then we cannot be sure that the sketches from the music halls were drawn and dated the same day as Sickert visited the establishments.

It is a more subtle approach to the issue than the one you suggest on my behalf. Far from concluding that it is a closed case, I leave it open.

And far from representing me correctly, you are doing the opposite.

That is all I have to say for now - I am not going to spend time on Casebook for some time, unless something really interesting surfaces.

[David Orsam]

Eh - what I said was that if Sleekviper was correct, then there could be no certainty that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of. I did not conclude that he could not have been in London at the stage.

Yes, Fisherman, that is precisely why I summarised your position as being that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. Isn't that correct? You have confirmed that you said that it is not certain that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of so it follows that, on the basis sleekviper was correct (which you were assuming he was), Cornwell must have been wrong to claim that Sickert was in London on those dates. So what's your problem with my summary?

[Fisherman]

Henry, yes he certainly did develop his sketches in the studio. For the Collins Music Hall painting (which emerged from his earlier sketches) Wendy Baron notes that there are two extant drawings "both fully realized studies of the whole scene, stage and audience". One is a watercolour reminiscent of some of his sketches and one is in pencil, pen and ink (although in respect of this drawing Baron says that it "may well have been drawn from, rather than in preparation for, the painting").

I rather think there is a distinction being made by Baron between a 'drawing' and a 'sketch' and I suspect that she uses the word 'sketch" to describe a study made from life and a 'drawing' as a more developed study, evidently made from an earlier sketch. Certainly, as you say, an expert would be able to spot the difference.

However, even if that is not correct, unless sleekviper responds with something said by Wendy Baron in her 2006 book, I am going to humbly declare myself 100% right and sleekviper 100% wrong because his original post in the thread, about which I was complaining, gave the impression that his authority was Wendy Baron's 2006 book. It was this, I believe, which induced Fisherman to suggest that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. But my point is that Wendy Baron does not support him, so unless you or he can show that Wendy Baron says in her book that Sickert made sketches of sketches - let alone that he annotated such sketches with the location despite being drawn in his studio - then he's wrong and I'm not!

Eh - what I said was that if Sleekviper was correct, then there could be no certainty that Sickert was in London on the dates spoken of. I did not conclude that he could not have been in London at the stage.

Here is my post, some of it in bold:

Aha. Well, that puts a very different slant on things. If I am not misreading you, this means that out of the 148 surviving sketches of Queenie Lawrence, only the one/s made on the first occasion, in combination with the Gatti´s performance, will carry the date of the performance, wheras the rest will carry a large array of OTHER dates, between the original performance date and the finishing of the painting, a year later?

If that is so, and if we carry this over to Sickert, it sounds as if he may have been in France when dating the London music hall sketches Cornwell speaks of.

[David Orsam]

Henry, yes he certainly did develop his sketches in the studio. For the Collins Music Hall painting (which emerged from his earlier sketches) Wendy Baron notes that there are two extant drawings "both fully realized studies of the whole scene, stage and audience". One is a watercolour reminiscent of some of his sketches and one is in pencil, pen and ink (although in respect of this drawing Baron says that it "may well have been drawn from, rather than in preparation for, the painting").

I rather think there is a distinction being made by Baron between a 'drawing' and a 'sketch' and I suspect that she uses the word 'sketch" to describe a study made from life and a 'drawing' as a more developed study, evidently made from an earlier sketch. Certainly, as you say, an expert would be able to spot the difference.

However, even if that is not correct, unless sleekviper responds with something said by Wendy Baron in her 2006 book, I am going to humbly declare myself 100% right and sleekviper 100% wrong because his original post in the thread, about which I was complaining, gave the impression that his authority was Wendy Baron's 2006 book. It was this, I believe, which induced Fisherman to suggest that Cornwell was wrong to claim that Sickert was in London in late September/early October 1888. But my point is that Wendy Baron does not support him, so unless you or he can show that Wendy Baron says in her book that Sickert made sketches of sketches - let alone that he annotated such sketches with the location despite being drawn in his studio - then he's wrong and I'm not!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.