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
Recent Comments