But the Archibald Prize likes you...

Each year, the Art Gallery of New South Wales puts on “Australia’s most extraordinary art event”[1], the Archibald Prize.  It’s a huge deal.  Unfortunately, it may be one of the only times in the year when the general public gives a tinker’s cuss about contemporary art.  So why do art critics seem to give it so much grief?

Each year, mud is slung at the Archibald by those whose opinion we’re all supposed to trust because they’re the professionals.  In The Australian, Christopher Allen gave us the angle that there’s too much painting based on photography and that the whole show is staged for people who don’t know anything about art.[2]  A weird combination of criticisms, I think.  It’s hard to complain about an exhibition being too populist and whinge that the paintings which make it up use a common frame of reference for most, considering that most of us carry a camera everywhere we go.  I can only imagine that Mr Allen would much prefer the Archibald Prize to be made up of heaps more painterly, difficult-to-relate-to paintings, and generally be a far more unpopular event.

Del Kathryn Barton
Hugo
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/prizes/archibald/2013/29358/

John McDonald (writing for The Sydney Morning Herald) on the other hand, called Del Kathryn Barton’s 2013 winning portrait of Hugo Weaving “basically a coloured-in drawing, as much an illustration as a painting”.[3]  Well, at least it doesn’t look like a photo, I guess.  In a fairly scathing preview of the prize, McDonald referred to some of the finalist’s work as cloying, stultifying, unpleasant, and trying too hard.  So apart from swallowing a thesaurus, he’s pretty much said that the whole field weren’t good enough examples of art to be part of a showcase event.  I guess he needs to keep his cranky reputation going by biting the hand that feeds him.

So, the Archibald Prize features too much work that looks like a photo, paintings that are little more than illustration, or are flat and dull, or generally not up to standard.  Arrrgh!  There’s not much left to hang!  It’s the same kind of people who complain that there’s not enough funding for the arts in Australia, but you can’t take the line that the arts should be totally elitist and at the same time expect the general public to fork over tons of cash to keep it going.  “Hey!” I hear you say.  “You’ve said before that you don’t mind art being a bit elite, stop changing your mind, Leslie!”  It’s true, I think art-making should be a bit elitist, but art appreciation is for everybody and if the Archibald Prize caters for a non-art-viewing public, great.  At least contemporary art is getting some sorely needed exposure.

The one thing that the critics all seem to agree on is that the trustees of AGNSW, the folks who select the winner, have no idea what they’re on about.  There are so many art prizes around the nation all year round which are judged by critics, curators, directors and an assortment of other arts professionals, why shouldn’t there be one judged by an arbitrary group of arts-interested “political cronies and captains of industry” (as Joanna Mendelssohn so aptly put it)?[4]  Again, it’s the idea that the general public has any form of ownership of the arts that the critics seem to be frustrated with.

Whether the critics like it or not, the Archibald Prize is popular, and the negative responses they put out year to year can only be doing them, and the arts in general, a disservice.  For the people who only really experience the arts through the Archibald, they may only read one review a year.  And to consistently see it run down by the very people who are supposed to champion Australian art, the only conclusion they can come to is that it’s not worth visiting an art gallery or seeing a play or reading a poem or listening to music because apparently we only produce crap in this country.  No wonder people will visit the Tate, MoMA, or the Louvre when they travel, but will never go to a major gallery in their own country.  Contemporary Australian art isn’t rubbish, and art isn’t just for the people ‘in the know’, it’s for everyone.

I have no problem with the Archibald Prize whatsoever.  It may be a little idiosyncratic for Australians to love portraiture, but what’s wrong with that?  We celebrate everything else that’s unique about our society and culture, so why not celebrate our public fascination with pictures of people.  It’s like an annual anti-tall poppies syndrome extravaganza, showcasing some of our best and brightest citizens.  Especially when you don’t know the subject of the portrait, you find out who it is and learn a little more about our wonderful and diverse community.  That is, until they announce the winner, and then we can all argue about which painting we thought should have won.  But people talking about which piece of art they thought was best seems a whole more productive than picking out the pieces you thought weren’t up to scratch.

I think a big thank you should go out to all the artists who enter the Archibald Prize, whatever their style.  They obviously don’t mind the exposure and public recognition that comes with being a finalist.  I can honestly say that I’ve never heard an artist complain that they’ve become too popular or that too many people appreciate their work.  The facts are quite plain: the Archibald prize is a drawcard for AGNSW; artists aspire to win it; it creates positive exposure for the arts; and it generates funds for the arts.

I only hope that the 2014 Archibald Prize is met with some positive press for a change.  Instead of whinging and moaning about every tiny detail that doesn’t meet our ridiculously high standards, let’s talk about all the good stuff, and finally be proud of our nation’s most prestigious art prize.  I know I am.

Mitch Cairns
Self-Portrait
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/prizes/archibald/2013/29361/

Abdul Abdullah
The Man
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/prizes/archibald/2013/29356/

Michael Zavros
Bad Dad
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/prizes/archibald/2013/29394/

Xu Wang
Self-portrait (interviewing Maoist victims)
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/prizes/archibald/2013/29391/

---

[1] Artgallery.nsw.gov.au (2013) Archibald, Wynne and Sulman Prizes 2013 :: Art Gallery NSW. [online] Available at: http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/archibald-wynne-sulman-prizes-2013/ [Accessed: 23 Mar 2013].

[2] Allen, C. (2013) Portraiture that looks like a snap to paint in Archibald Prize. [online] Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/portraiture-that-looks-like-a-snap-to-paint/story-e6frg8n6-1226597610423 [Accessed: 23 Mar 2013].

[3] Mcdonald, J. (2013) Vines, an indefinable lifeform - but where's the insight?. [online] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/vines-an-indefinable-lifeform--but-wheres-the-insight-20130322-2glat.html [Accessed: 23 Mar 2013].

[4] Mendelssohn, J. (2013) Australian art's great circus: loving and loathing the Archibald. [online] Available at: http://theconversation.com/australian-arts-great-circus-loving-and-loathing-the-archibald-12904 [Accessed: 23 Mar 2013].