I have heard the news report on one television station overnight of legal action being contemplated by some artists unhappy with the selection process at the 2006 Archibald Prize regarding one of the paintings in the exhibition they claim as not being a portrait. They are not referring to the winner, but to another entry. It may well be the case also that the words were spoken in the heat of the moment and that the thoughts of legal action may evaporate with passing time. Even if that were the case it is worth examining the issues raised.
I should point out here that I have not spoken to or otherwise been in contact with these artists and do not even recall the name that was mentioned in the news report. This is a spontaneous reaction of those artists and in no way connected with the Supreme Court challenge over the 2004 Archibald Prize.
I can understand the frustration these artists feel at the selection process from time to time. The Art Gallery Of New South Wales describes the paintings in the annual Archibald Prize exhibition as finalists, and so there is an understandable presumption on the part of the public that the works selected would each be chosen because of both their excellence and eligibility for the prize, and so the public may well expect that the Trustees had considered whether each complied with the terms of the will of the late J F Archibald.
It would appear doubtful that the work in question would in fact satisfy those conditions, that is that it is a portrait in the sense that Archibald intended. While there are many artists with a vested interest in the changing of the conditions of the bequest, the fact that it is a charitable bequest is protected in law and the Trustees have an obligation to discharge their duty according to the will of J F Archibald.
It is unfortunate that the Prize is brought into disrepute in this way. Each year I enter with a work that is both worthy of selection, and yet also complies with the conditions of the Prize. I presume that the judges have integrity and make judging decisions based purely on the artistic qualities of the work and it’s eligibility under the rules. Instances like this one can shake my confidence in this process.
Past winners that are artistically adventurous, and explore the boundaries of portrait painting such as Brett Whiteley’s ‘Art, Life And The Other Thing’ demonstrate that there is plenty of room to both satisfy the needs of modern art and the terms of Archibald’s bequest. This years winner itself is exploratory of the boundaries of portrait painting, yet there is no doubt that it is either a portrait or a painting.
Having said that I am all too aware of the immense difficulties in mounting a legal challenge of this magnitude. I also note that while Archibald’s will does stipulate conditions governing the awarding and exhibiting of the winner, he is silent on the matter of the exhibition of any other entries. It would thus seem that any legal challenge to the inclusion of any artwork in the finalists exhibition apart from the winner, would be very difficult despite the emotion of the moment.
Personally I have mixed feelings in this regard. On the one hand it is not unreasonable to expect all finalists to be works that are eligible to win. Since that descision (of eligibility) is probably the easiest for the Art Gallery Trust to make, there is little reason not to cull works that are ineligible early on.
On the other hand, the inclusion in an exhibition of ineligible works enables a fuller spectrum of contemporary arts practice to be seen, and would serve to encourage more adventurous artists to enter. It also widens the audience for the Archibald to include many in the contemporary artworld who would normally not be interested in a competition for painted portraits in the commonly accepted usage of that term.
Perhaps if the Art Gallery Trust were to apply the term finalist only to those works it deems to be seriously under consideration for the prize and does not apply the term to other works, they could open up the show to even more adventurous works that might on the one hand be artworks well worth exhibiting yet are clearly outside the intent of J F Archibald and his Bequest which they benefit from so much each year. There is an opportunity here for the Art Gallery to be more adventurous than they usually are.
Dr. Christopher Birch is Senior Counsel for our team. Dr. Birch is Senior Counsel at Sir Garfield Barwick Chambers. Sir Garfield Barwick was the high profile 'silk' in the famous 1943 Dobell Archibald Prize Challenge with Sir Frank Kitto opposing. That case was notable as a "mighty tussle between two brilliant lawyers" (Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG) The current case is also shaping into a remarkable tussle.
Malcolm Duncan was the first member of the legal team. It was Malcolm who came to the Art Gallery of New South Wales to examine the portraits in person at the beginning. According to Malcolm the best use for art is probably to cover blemishes on the wall. He has however a great sense of justice and his career is noted for his attention to social issues, and for helping the under dog. He originally came to the law after several years in the army which may explain his tactical and strategic qualities in the court room.
Fiona Sinclair-King would no doubt have been surprised to know, as she prepared for the Bar, that one day she would need to become expert in the ins and outs of the Archibald Prize. Since joining the team she has followed not just the thoughts of J. F. Archibald, but also the Ruddy portrait to a warehouse in Queensland, (where it had been placed in storage) so our experts could carefully examine the work for the case.
Patrick Moloney has a very keen interest in modern art. His office is adorned with a fine example of a McLean Edwards painting. As solicitor for the Supreme Court action he has laid a strong foundation for the case. his professionalism, integrity and tenacity is second to none, I am thankful he is on our side.
Comments