News Flash!! . . . VINCENT VAN GOGH WAS JACK THE RIPPER!!

[Cogidubnus]

Before we all get carried away...

I'm sorry Colin, Phil, but this is out of order.

Why should Dale supply you two with free review copies, thereby halving his earnings from the book?

It ain't right...

Dave

[Phil H]

Well, as I have said I won't buy a copy, he wouldn't be losing a sale!

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Kindle

But he'd be losing the use of a book...as a present participle at least...

All the best

Dave

[Ayailla]

Are there those among us who are not respectable?

Me, for instance!

I just meant the board veterans, for example.

[Fisherman]

Actually, Dale. I'd review a copy too. Give me a miss though if it's all about hidden images in paintings, becaue the same claims have been made against Sickert & Toulouse Lautrec and they can't all be Whitechapel serial killers.

With Toulouse-Lautrec, one would expect cut achilles tendons, not cut throats ...

Fisherman

[Phil H]

That was a bite round the ankles, my dear sir!!

Did you not know that Monsieur Lautrec gained the soubriquet (note the elegant use of a French term there) "No Time To Lose" on the night of the Double Event - or the Double Event, as they say across the Channel.

Toulouse was not a man to cry into his manche, however, and could rarely see above the parapet - hence the murders were all committed with the victims in a horizontal position and already fatally dead.

Phil (or Phillippe as they say in Gaul - though not in Provence, of course).

[Vincent alias Jack]

You can always cut off an ear here and there to make the book shorter and leaner.

Not one I'll be adding to my shelves.

Colin Wilson once observed that no artist had ever been a murderer - by definition they deal with their demons in another way. Anyone know if that is true?

Phil

To Phil H and Ayailla:
I understand the distinction you are making about the use of Hitler as an artist, but I think the two of you may have missed the heart of my response, so I re-quote Phil’s original post to emphasize what I was targeting.

Phil was stating a belief that artists don’t murder because their art gives them an outlet for their demons. I happen to believe there is no basis for this belief, and using the extreme example of Hitler was meant to show this. Hitler was artistic, but his art did not act as an outlet for his demons.

Had Phil simply stated that he believed no artist had ever been a murderer, without attempting to give the reason why, then my approach would have been different, but the end result is the same—a murderer, a mass murderer, or a serial killer could spring out of any profession. The particular profession or circumstance might be a catalyst to push a killer to kill, but trying to say a profession, such as being an artist, keeps a killer from killing, simply doesn’t work.

And it especially doesn’t work when the logic that then follows concludes that somehow if no artist has ever been a killer before, then no artist could ever be a killer. It’s no different than saying no Compliance Officer has ever been a serial killer before, therefore we should release the BTK serial killer, Dennis Rader, since he was a Compliance Officer. It just don’t jive, man.

Hope that clears things up.

Thanks for your comments,
Dale Larner

[Phil H]

Excuses excuses... is a man who paints the outside of his own house, a "house-painter? By definition he is, but the term is usually used for those who make a living by it.

Hitler was NOT an artist in any usual meaning of the word.

In any case i don't accept that: a murderer, a mass murderer, or a serial killer could spring out of any profession.

You still have to cite and example of an artist who - by OUR (rather than your) meaning, has personally committed premeditated murder. Until you do that your excuses are frankly meaningless self-justification.

Heaven knows what any book you have written will be like!!

Phil

[miss marple]

Vincent was not a psychopath. He had too much feeling and empathy.Artists have an extra sensitivity and awareness of love pain and suffering; Anyone who has been to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam wil lbe aware of the intensity and sensitivity of that great soul.
Vincent alias Jack is pathetic and ignorant, He has not justified in anyway his ludicrous slanders against the Vincent whose name he insults.

Miss Marple

[moonbegger]

Greetings all ,

You still have to cite and example of an artist who - by OUR (rather than your) meaning, has personally committed premeditated murder

(Rolf Harris) murdered (stairway to heaven) that is indeed a fact

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Actually, i'll take that back , I quite like Rolf's version !

[Phil H]

But those count as crimes against humanity, moonbeggar.

[Nemo]

Wasn't Nero a bit of an artist?

I cite Lucian Staniak but people have questioned whether he was an artist or not

It's largely irrellevant IMO as has already been stated

[Vincent alias Jack]

Vincent was not a psychopath. He had too much feeling and empathy.Artists have an extra sensitivity and awareness of love pain and suffering; Anyone who has been to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam wil lbe aware of the intensity and sensitivity of that great soul.
Vincent alias Jack is pathetic and ignorant, He has not justified in anyway his ludicrous slanders against the Vincent whose name he insults.

Miss Marple

I would suggest that judging an artist's character solely by what effect their artwork has on you will lead to a false image of the artist, which has happened with Van Gogh. Artists are magicians. Paintings are illusions of reality created to trick the eye. But don’t feel bad about it. You’ve been tricked by one of the greatest magicians ever, and so was I, and so too has the general public been fooled.

If you want to better understand the true character of the man, read his letters. You’ll find good old Vincent was quite a different person. Sure, he was aware of pain and suffering, but only in the sense that he enjoyed it. Sorrow was his joy. Vincent made trouble wherever he went—trouble for his family, and trouble for anyone who got near him. He was an alcoholic and a manipulator, and his personality attributes also match those of a psychopathic personality—to a T, in fact.

You don’t have to read all 800 of his letters to see his real character, though. Try Irving Stone’s book, Dear Theo, for a smaller selection of his letters. That will give you a taste of the real Van Gogh. But you’ll have to wait for VINCENT ALIAS JACK to see how well it all matches to his alter ego . . . Jack the Ripper.

Thanks for your comment, but I think you could leave off the name calling next time. It only makes you look small.

Cheers,
Dale Larner

[Phil H]

You do a very good job of making yourself look small, V alias J. We don't need to do anything. Your over self-hyping is the clue.

So we should not judge an artist by his or her works but by their letters - mmmnnnn wonder what the art world will have to say about that?

Oh and let's re-define art as something different so it fits my pet theory - not usually a good approach.

And any useful theory on JtR HAS surely to be based on evidence that the proposed suspect was in the area at the time? We have had too many tin-pot theories simply drawing on subjective written material and flaws of character or (preserve us) anagrams (both Carroll). Even Barnardo (paper thin though the case is) is at least known to have been IN THE AREA at around the right time and might have seen or met Liz Stride. Even Uncle Jack recognised the need for evidence (though managed to compromise itself in producing it).

Everything I see or read about your alleged book (I doubt we'll ever see it in print) reminds me of Cornwell's misjudged and expensive attempt to frame Walter Sickert (another painter). Despite all the resources she threw at it, she has done no more than demonstrate that her suspect may have written nuisance letters to the police.

If you think we mock you, V alias J, then wait for the day (should it ever dawn) when reviewers and critics get hold of a copy, or experts on JtR have an opportunity to judge. You will find the comments then merciless, and every gap in your logic, every chink in your research or interpretation of evidence rigorously scrutinised and pulled apart. be ready. We are good humoured - they won't be.

You might, if you have not already done so - benefit from reading threads about the exposure of "Uncle Jack" - it might be a useful lesson in what may be to come.

Nemo - I don't recall that Nero ever killed anyone personally (i.e. with his own hands).

the relevance of the artist-as-killer question is that V Gogh is an artist, and Colin Wilson once made. I have now tracked it down. The statement is in his 1987 book (Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict) co-written with Robin Odell. Both men were well versed in the Ripper case and Wilson has written widely on criminology and psychology, so are in a position to know. Wilson writes:

"Does this mean that Sickert was JtR? Almost certainly not. Artists and writers may become morbidly obsessed by certain murders, but.... no artist has ever been known to commit a premeditated murder..." [my emphasis].

I asked whether any other Casebook poster knew whether that statement was true. As it relates to an artist it seems relevant to me, because if it rules out Walter it rules out Vincent.

Phil