Sickert nonsense

L'Affaire de Camden Town

Here are my comments as written in response to a Guardian article about a new ballet currently being created in London. You can see the condensed version on the paper's website. This is what I originally wrote.I should add the name of Stephen Knight to the trio who are determined to associate Sickert with various muders. It was Knight in particular who helped to spread Gorman's story.

Dear Editor,

I object to Judith Mackrell parading a farrago of unmitigated tosh  in her article "Dance of Death" concerning a new ballet which refers to the artist Walter Sickert's supposed fascination and possible involvement with various lurid murders. The sources behind the stories, particularly  Patricia Cornwell and Joseph Gorman, the self-styled "Hobo Sickert", have been comprehensively discredited on more than one occasion .

Matthew Sturgis's biography of the artist is conclusive enough for most historians. That Sickert had some interest in the Ripper and Camden Town Murders is unquestioned, but there is no substantial evidence for any 

serious connection with the Royal family or any known murder.

 I object also to the ignorant  and sensationalist account of Sickert's working methods.The  description of a touch of paint which implies a"dagger-like approach to the woman's genital area" suggesting  hatred of the feminine is just crude and stupid.  Sickert's working methods tended to the deliberate and meditated .The implication that because a brushstroke is put down quickly

 it also has some emotional and in this case violent content is extremely suspect. The artist often quoted his own father's advice to paint well and quickly and himself frequently worked on a kind of production line system

where paintings were put away for some time to dry between stages. That Sickert's shaggy facture is mistaken for some kind of aggressive intent is naive in the extreme.

Titles were almost interchangeable with Sickert. There is no real evidence of deliberate obscurity - more likely a poverty of  imagination - or could there be an attempt at disconcerting his intellectual sparring partner Roger Fry?Not enough attention has been paid to the artist's whimsy. He evidently thought that canvases should have titles, and in Sickert's case they seem to be deliberately literary.To an unbiased eye the  painting known as The Camden Town Murder could  as readily be titled, What shall we do for the rent, Ennui or Jack Ashore - all titles used by Sickert.His father worked as an illustrator, and Sickert loved the work of professionals from earlier generations.

From the Archives: Conflict of Interests?

And see also:

Hunting the gatherers: ethnographic collectors, agents and ..., Issue 2002

 By Michael O'Hanlon, Robert Louis Welsch


 Partly available via Google Books

Cadell the Colourist

F C B Cadell was born in 1883 the year of Manet's death. It somehow seems appropriate. All the Scottish colourists were Francophile in their outlook and Manet and then Impressionism and Fauvism in general were so important for them all. They took something from France and yet they kept their own individuality. Cadell was certainly concerned with style.Some may say that there is too much style and too little content but give the man credit for what he does and within that narrow field his work is extraordinary. Everything is calculated and the ability to organise strong colour is extraordinary. Compare him with Matisse if you like-neither has anything profound to say about the human condition-and Matisse next to Cadell seems something of an incompetent.Within his limits Cadell is the more perfect artist.

This organisation of extraordinary colour combinations in paintings with strong designs is a difficult feat for anyone. Cadell's success is quite unusual.He went to Paris to study independently at age 16. No doubrt his family friend Arthur Melville encouraged him on his way. There was also a short time spent in Munich when the Cadell family were there-but there is nothing Teutonic about his work.It is interesting that he has mentioned Raeburn as an early interest. You can see that Cadell would admire his freshness and suavity.

On Iona he and Peploe painted gorgeous landscapes on their numerous visits. Cadell seems to have felt the need to put in small human figures-at just the right point in the composition to enliven the work. A figure or a yacht, they are always in just the right place.

TECHNICAL NOTE

I have never seen so many paintings under glass as those I saw in Edinburgh on my recent visit. I had thought that this was perhaps just an old-fashioned Scottish habit. But I learn from the Cadell catalogue that he and Peploe got into the habit of painting on a gesso ground. It seems to be this which makes the later paintings have this matte chalky surface.In effect the binder is sucked out of the paint and into the ground.There should be a a barrier between the ground or the paint or the paint becomes unworkable and cannot be pushed about.This can be attractive in its way. On the back of one of his Iona paintings Cadell has written,"Absorbent ground, never varnish".If you do not varnish a painting and yet want to preserve this chalky, impressionist ideal, what can you do? You put the picture under glass.This will help to keep the surface clean.It would otherwise be difficult to remove surface marks, there being no glossy,hard surface from which marks can easily be removed.Vuillard had similar concerns with his distemper paintings-which again should not be varnished.They tell me that the varnishing problem has been solved for acrylics. Perhaps it has.