Archibald Prize Challenge

WELCOME TO THE NEW SITE

Hello friends, supporters and art lovers. As you can see the Archibald Prize Challenge site is settling well into it's new home. There is a lot more than just a lick of paint and new Tyre's on this baby. There's a new organisation that comes with the colourful look, along with the best of the previous sites.

There are snappy new postings explaining all the back ground to the case. A new Latest News feature that remains in the same place just below this  Welcome message. There you will find the latest from the courts. And throughout you will find the best of the postings from our other blogs interspersed with new postings.  You will find that  the comments links on those old postings actually take you  back to the original sites to read the comments as people  left them.

We have consolidated material from 3 blogs: ArchibaldPrizeChallenge.blogspot.com,  Archibald FAQ.blogspot and  Archibald Prize.blogspot. None of which have been updated since Christmas. The exhaustion that resulted from last years intensity, plus plain old needs for survival slowed us down anyway, but with the preparations for this years Archibald and the exhibition aftermath (which is still going on) this intended move took far longer than any one would have expected. Looking around the wait has been worth it.

The material from previous blogs has led to some dates being out of kilter. Please forgive us for that. We blame artistic necessity.

Look for Jaqi's excellent essay which explains why the challenge road was taken far more eloquently than I ever could. Thanks Jaqi.

Latest News Stop Press Latest News Stop Press Latest News

We have been in Court very briefly most months for more than a year now. Even though it is all as slow as treacle flowing, it has been fascinating watching the case unfold. It appears that the hearing will be the intellectual debate that the issue deserves.

We were in Court very briefly thursday 14th July to ask for an extension while we finalise the expert investigation of the Ruddy drawing. The picture has been interstate for several months, and we finally tracked it down to a warehouse on the Gold Coast. It's a very well traveled picture now. It is my expectation that the artwork will be returned to Sydney for the hearing when it happens.

COURT NEWS: NOVEMBER 16th
Today the Hearing date has now been allocated. The Archibald Hearing will be heard on 29th and 30th May 2006. Thats an excellent time for it to happen in many ways. It will be after the finish of next years painting, so it won't be distracting at that time. It will be after the judging of next years Prize so shouldn't interfere with that, yet it is likely to be while the Archibald Prize Exhibition is still on and should stimulate debate about the Prize at an appropriate time. And of course it will be good to get it all over and done with so that all concerned can move on.

MARCH 25 2006
Congratulations to Marcus Wills on winning the 2006 Archibald Prize. Also tonight television carried a story on some artists contemplating legal action over one of the entries. Story in post below.

A Very Brief History

The Archibald Prize originated with a charitable bequest endowed by Jules Francois Archibald in 1916. His will stipulates a portrait painted by any artist resident in Australasia, preferably of some one distinguished in Art, Letters, Science or Politics.

It has a litigious history with many of its defining moments in the Courtroom. The most significant of these was the 1943 Dobell case in which artists challenged the winner on the grounds that it was a caricature rather than a portrait, and less famous but possibly more importantly, the Bloomfield case, in which the Art Gallery Trustees took an artist to court when they found he had not painted the portrait from life. Their position  appeared to be that in the interests of fairness and their legal obligations under the terms of the bequest the matter required Court action.

Each year the entry form is headed by an invitation by the Art Gallery of New South Wales trust to artists to 'submit paintings in competition for the Archibald Prize'. They then quote the words of Archibald in which he mentions 'painted' and then they quote from the Bloomfield case judgement and state that 'For the purposes of this Prize, the Trustees apply the definition of a portrait as determined in the judgement of 1983: "a picture of a person painted from life".'

The 2004 Archibald Prize was won by a beautiful portrait that unfortunately in the opinion of many is a drawing, not a painting. Tony Johansen, one of the competitors sought legal advice from 3 separate sources, all of which advised that the winning portrait appeared to breach the terms of the bequest, in not being a painting. Subsequently, he took an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to have the decision overturned, and to ensure that the terms and conditions of the Archibald Bequest be adhered to.

His position has been that in the interests of fairness, the Art Gallery of New South Wales Trustees need to be held to the same standard of accountability that was enforced in the Court by them in the Bloomfield case, and that Archibald's bequest should be adhered to, as previous Trustees have argued in the past.

Thanks To Andrew

This site was started by Andrew who wrote that "this site is dedicated to truth in art." Contributions come from Tony, Jaqi, and a wide range of contributers including the very prolific Anonymous. We are artists, musicians, performers, business people, in fact we are a cross section of real life people who share an interest in promoting excellence in the arts and furthering the ideals embodied in the will of J.F. Archibald. Original blogs may be submitted via the 'Email Me' link on this page. Every effort will be made to publish in original form, however, long or offensive blogs will be edited at the discretion of the moderator.

Introducing Tony

Tony Johansen is a Kings Cross artist who has been a competitor in the Archibald Prize each year since 1997. Nine years ago he founded the Real Refusés, aka the Democratic Archibald which each year gives opportunity to those rejected by both the official Archibald Prize and the official Salon des Refusés to exhibit their work and celebrate being part of Australia's largest and most prestigious art event.

Tony's artistic passions are well known. He is a strong advocate for the needs and rights of emerging artists. In 1999 he became the founding president of the Kings Cross Arts Guild and Director in its formative years of the Kings Cross Arts Festival.

His studio in William Street is a popular bohemian venue for debate, learning, and figure drawing, painting, and sculpture. He has a Lautrec-like reputation for drawing and painting in Kings Cross bars.

Tony's work, over recent years is increasingly involving a digital expression. His 2005 Archibald Prize entry became the first to include an on-line component, and now that the Archibald Prize exhibition has finished, his entry, GoFigure.net.au continues to receive significant Internet traffic which shows no sign of diminishing. Interestingly the highest proportion of that traffic comes from the United States.

Tony now signs his work TonyJohansen.com. His goal is the greater integration of traditional arts with the Internet for creative reasons as well as the liberation of artists from the current restrictive establishment gallery system.

The $35,000 Bequestion

Should the judging panel of a rich, high profile art prize be allowed to blithely disregard entry rules they have aggressively defended in the past? Obviously not, one would think; but should they be allowed to get away with it if the result is a win for the portrait of a highly-regarded Aboriginal elder?

On Tony Johansen's terms, the answer is still no, and he has a point. While the indigenous community is unarguably under-represented in the Establishment art scene and the Archibald Prize Trustees' token gesture may be populist, it clearly isn't fair. It isn't fair to those entrants who restricted themselves to the rules, it isn't fair to those artists who refrain from entering the Archibald because they believe their work doesn't fit the rules, and it isn't fair to John Bloomfield, who won the prize in 1975 and whom the Board of the time sued for return of the prize money when they learned he had broken the rules by painting from a photograph. Bloomfield might have thought it was acceptable rule-bending; the Trustees didn't, and the Court supported them. Ever since then, the Board has used the definition from Archibald's will which was the point at issue in that case- that the work must be a portrait 'painted from life'- on the entry form.

In other words, it must be a portrait, it must be painted, and it must be from life. Three of the entries accepted for this year's Archibald Prize evidently do not fit one part or another of that description; a fourth entry is arguable. Janet Lawrence, from the judging panel, has admitted that whether or not the winning entry was actually a painting was not discussed in the early rounds of the judging. She further admitted that she wasn't actually present for the final decision, raising questions about just how conscientious the members of the Board are in dispensing the obligations of the Trust.

This is not a debate about giving legitimate space to contemporary art media: there are and always will be other prizes for alternative and emerging media. As artist Margaret Olley (herself the subject of William Dobell's winning entry in 1948) commented, the Gulpilil portrait really would have been better entered in the Dobell Drawing Prize. If you can win the Archibald with a drawing, why bother with an oil? And if a drawing counts as a 'painting', how could you object to a creatively augmented photograph (taken, of course, from life)? What about a collage or a video or a performance piece? What price the thousand year developement of painterly craft- must all our 'painting' prizes go post modern?

What is at issue here is whether the Trustees' extremely elastic interpretation of the word 'painting' is in keeping with either the last wishes of Jules Francois Archibald (1856-1919) or the terms of the legal contract the Art Gallery of New South Wales enters with each and every contestant who completes an entry form, scrapes together the entry fee, and submits awork according to the rules. Lax or sentimental judgement on the Trustees part leading to less-than-scrupulous fidelity to those rules - and to the terms of Archibald's bequest - is both illegal and immoral.

Of course, the political delicacy of protesting the awarding of the prize to a portrait of so admirable, under appreciated and easily romanticised a figure as David Gulpilil has put many otherwise fair-minded folk off the trail here, but Tony Johansen is having none of it. At the risk of painting him as a flat-footed, shit-stirring idealist tramping in where angels fear to tread, Johansen's political naivety may actually be instrumental in preserving the noble old art of portrait painting. In what lawyers are calling a land mark case for bequest law 'throughout the entire British world', Johansen is applying to the equity division of the Supreme Court for a declaration directing the Trustees to obey the terms of Archibalds bequest. Beside dividing the local art world, the case will be watched closely from overseas where similar issues have been raised over recent judgements in the Turner Prize among others.

Of course, Johansen is anxious not to see a fellow artist disadvantaged in the process and believes winner Craig Ruddy should be allowed to keep the prize money. And if he's not,says Johansen with a customary twinkle in his eye,'we'd support Craig Ruddy in any effort to exact compensation from the Board.'

Court cases cost money and, like most artists Johansen hasn't a bean. But he's learning some fast lessons in fundraising, and the campaign to raise the necessaries kicked off with a party at the Taxi Club in June which was by all accounts a raging success. This essay was written to explain why it is that contributions and and other help is necessary in order to fight the battle for integrity in the art world. And why the fight is necessary in the first place. Offers can be made directly to the Challenge Team at [email protected] Any and all help will be greatly appreciated by a passionate but poor challenge team

ARCHIBALD AND THE FRENCH CONNECTION

Benefactor, and patron of the arts, Jules François Archibald loved all things French. So much so, that he changed his name. That's right folks, exotic sounding Jules was born as a far more Anglo-Saxon John Feltham, and changed his name as a young man.

Besides wine, food and art, our illustrious francophile was profoundly influenced by French revolutionary ideals of liberty, egalitarianism, and fraternity. Perhaps this goes a long way to explaining why The Bulletin, under his leadership in the 1890's nurtured artistic and poetic talents like Henry Lawson and Norman Lindsay. The Bulletin was also known as a strong advocate for social justice, and fought for an independent Australia, free from the British establishment.

It also seems Archibalds appointment as a Trustee was part of a strategy of a reforming Labour Government lead by William Arthur Holman. It appears Archibald was a spearhead of the encouragement of Australian art in an otherwise Euro-centric board who prefered to entrust a lions share of major purchases for the Gallery to their 'London Agents'.

What delicious irony, the champion of Australian Art had a French name. And when he left his great fountain to the citizens of Sydney, he ensured it would be made by a French sculptor and would commemorate Australian/French military co-operation.

When it came to his great bequest however, there was nothing French about it. His Archibald Prize was intended to encourage artists working in Australia only. It was a continuation of his work as a Trustee where all his committee activities involved the perpetuation and nurturing of Australian culture.

Jules François Archibald was and remains a great Australian to whom all Australian artists owe a debt of gratitude. We feel certain his spirit will forgive us raising a glass of Australian wine in toast to a lifetime dedicated to us. Thanks, JFA.

posted by Challenge Team @ 11:48 AM2 comments

A Monolithic Win

Surprise greeted the announcement today of the 2006 Archibald Prize winner. All the so-called smart money was on other and better known choices. Congratulations Marcus Wills for a well deserved win.

His painting in which he presents the viewer with 29 separate portraits of sculptor Paul Juraszek, reaches back in time to the world of Netherlandish and Germanic painters of the extraordinary, in this case Marcus Gheerearts but it is hard not to be reminded of Bosch and Brueghel as well.

Some commenrtators have likened the work to 20th century surrealists as if it might derive from them, but it seems to me that the work is more of a reflection of having a common ancestor with the surrealists, than so much resulting from their work. The rediscovery of such artists as Arcimboldo provided a large part of the inspiration for the surrealists as they sought new ways to describe the dream world.

Marcus Wills must feel that he is in some kind of Surrealist dreamworld right now, we wish him well as he deals with it all.

News Reports Of More Legal Action

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.