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].
