Out Now - The 2005 Archibald Entry Forms.
Todays mail brought a nice little surprise, an envelope with the AGNSW logo on the front. After taking bets on whether or not it was a belated Happy New Year card from the Trustees, the package was solemly opened to reveal this years Archibald entry form.
Yes folks, never wanting to be elusive nor unnecesarily secretive, we can announce that the Challenge Team mailbox is still connected to the exclusive (to those who ask to be on it) Art Gallery of NSW mailing list (although not the one that that sends invites to cocktails with the board... (we did ask, but it seems the list was already full enough, just now, thanks very much.)
We can reveal that there are changes to words here and there, some abbreviations are now full words, there are some minor additions of sentences, and someone very sensible has decided to increase font sizes by a point or two and used clearer, more easy to read fonts. Which makes for no mistakes when we discovered that there is absolutely no change to the most important information on the form, so important that we will quote it here in full from the top of the form, where it is printed in bold, and in even bigger letters than last year:
"In terms of the bequest of the late J.F. Archibald who died in 1919, the Art Gallery of New South Wales Trust invites artists to submit paintings in competition for the Archibald Prize, 2005, which will be awarded to the best portrait "preferentially of some man or woman distinguished in Art, Letters, Science or Politics painted by any artist in Australasia during the 12 months preceeding the date fixed by the Trustees for sending in the pictures". 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". "
Until the court judgement later this year, it would be an unwise artist who chose to submit a drawing for this competition if they want any chance of winning. While we have little doubt the senior management at the Art Gallery would appreciate, at least in some way, the publicity value for them of the current case, it is doubtful that they would risk another case so soon. It is most likely that the judgement of 2005 will be marked by a careful reading of the entry form and questions of eligibility. They may even notice that their own invitation is for paintings.
Of couse, should the AGNSW Trustees win, then all of the words in the entry form are up for reinterpretation, and sculptural, new media and other entries that can be shoe-horned somehow into the mixed media clause will all be eligible to win the Prize. Sounds crazy, but its the logical next step in the post-modernist re-interpretation of the will of Archibald. Besides, it's little different from calling a drawing a painting.
Any artists and other interested parties can obtain a copy of the new entry form by phoning the Art Gallery of New South Wales on 02 9225 1700.
Happy New Year!
Please forgive the personal nature of this posting. All artists at all times struggle as a general rule, whether with money, or internal demons, or just the gulf between vision and achievement.To all artists may 2005 bring good things, productive times, and positive achievements. May 2005 be a year of inner strengths, and happiness. May these wishes extend to all of your families and loved ones. Happy New Year to all.
Legal Fees And How We Pay Them
This post had to happen. Lets just call this one the begging post and get straight to the point. Tony Johansen is a Kings Cross artist. You know from that that he hasn't a bean. I haven't a bean. In fact a significant portion of artists and performers are, lets face it, on struggle street.
Yet even so they have all chipped in something. Sure, some of our supporters are business people and have bucks. But then they have already put in to the kitty. Some of them quite substantially. Just a week ago a high profile person in the heritage industry dropped off a cheque for $500. Thank you for that.
Now I'm not going to repeat all the arguments. They surround you on this blogspot. You know it's a reasonable call. You also know that lawyers and courts cost big bickies. Any amount from 5 dollars to 500, or more go directly into our trust fund account administered by Moloney Lawyers.
You can mail your contribution to them at:
Moloney Lawyers Trust Account
PO Box 635
Potts Point NSW 2011
Australia
All assistance, big or small is welcomed with huge appreciation. You know we can't do it without you. Thank You. Offers of other kinds of assistance can be made to our e-mail address:
archibaldchallenge@hotmail.com
Yes it has happened before. Read the article at the bottom of the ArchibaldFAQ site to find out when, and why that has no bearing on the current court action. To read the article and much more besides click here.
Court Update, Thurs, 2nd Dec 04
A brief directions hearing this morning resulted in the court directing the Trust of the AGNSW to serve their evidence on the 20th December and for the parties to reappear at the Supreme Court on Thursday 10th February 2005. Hopefully we will then go into the callover for the 16th of March to be allocated a Court Date.
Read All About It!
This Archibald Prize Challenge blog page is accompanied by 2 closely allied sites that answer questions and provide background information. They are full of all sorts of interesting postings. Some highlights:
At archibaldprize.blogspot.com "Where Have All The Women Gone?"
Out of 40 pictures in the Archibald exhibition there are only 7 female artists, and only 5 female subjects. The winner being a drawing is not the only injustice being perpetrated by the decisions of the AGNSW Trustees.More
At archibaldfaq.blogspot.com "Doesn't The Art Gallery Always Win?"
They wish, but it's not the case. A short history of Art Gallery wins and losses from 1922 to the present, and why, in the end, it is always Archibald's will that wins. More
Melbourne Critic Slams The Archibald Decision
As the Archibald circus slowly tours selected South East Australian venues supporters of the challenge keep us up to date on what is happening here and there. Today a large envelope of Melbourne press clippings landed in the challenge letterbox and most interesting reading it proved to be. The Herald Sun published a review of the Archibald on November 22nd by Jeff Makin. Under the heading 'Let's draw the line' Makin asserts that "..The trustees of the Art Gallery of NSW, who judge the Archibald, either can't tell the difference between a drawing and a painting or are doing this as a publicity stunt." He then goes on to examine the differences between painted and drawn works and concludes that "This years winner is a very fine portrait drawing, but its not a painting."
Ah, the light is slowly dawning on the Australian public that an injustice has occurred. Makin observes that there "are several excellent contenders for the $35,000 first prize and they are powerful portraits with not the slightest question of their credentials as a painting.
Makin's final point goes for the throat. "There's also a portrait of a rabbit, which is a further indictment of the trustees in their flouting of the Archibald Bequest regulations.
This is not the first time they have turned the Archibald into a sideshow and, frankly, I think that if they refuse to respect the criteria of the bequest, they should give the money back. Or give it to the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, where such a prize rightly belongs."
Ouch! Perhaps it's a good thing the Trustees don't read the Melbourne papers with their breakfast. I can imagine such reviews ruining the best of appetites. But perhaps they might also realise that the Supreme Court action is polite compared to what some in the art world are likely to say and do as time goes by. Maybe it's time for the Trustees to do some reviewing of their own and reassess the eligibility of this years winner.
Court News, Nov - early Dec
We're back in court on the 2nd of December and the big question is now: will they show up? Yes folks, you heard it here first. At our 11th November court appearance at the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Art Gallery Of New South Wales didn't arrive on time. This meant that that in their absence the Court set a new date of 2nd December for a further directions hearing. They appeared to be less than happy when they heard the news of the new date.
The delay also means that it is now not possible for the main hearing to occur in December, the most likely dates now being February, March or April. It would be most unfortunate if it were to co-incide with the 2005 Archibald Prize. The prefered option was always to have the matter decided long before the prize date to remove any uncertainties for all concerned, artists and Trustees alike. Consequently, we will be seeking the earliest possible hearing date.
Meanwhile the expert witness has examined the Ruddy drawing. His written report is with the court. It gives us cause to feel confident as we head to the main proceedings. We are now awaiting the Art Gallery Trust's evidence and the setting of the the Hearing date.
In all the excitement about the court case no-one seems to have noticed the AGNSW is doing artists no favours through their on-line art prizes site.The site starts with a statement that the complete list of conditions appears on the entry form without making it plain that the on-line list is incomplete. The site includes only some of the Trustee imposed general conditions, which in 2004 numbered only 8. The yellow paper form lists 16 plus a fuller statement of Archibald's requirements.
Artists would be forgiven for under-estimating the importance placed on the requirement that the work be a painting.
The legal document that artists sign and provide their personal information is printed on bright yellow paper. It begins with the clear and unambiguous words 'the Art Gallery of New South Wales Trust invites artists to submit paintings in competition for the Archibald Prize'. Their own words and those of J.F. Archibald are then reinforced by a quote from the 1983 court judgement as being the trustees definition of a portrait for the purposes of the prize that the work be 'a picture of a person painted from life'.
The yellow form must be signed in front of a JP and forms the contract between the artist and the AGNSW.Some artists having gotten their original information from the AGNSW website may not be aware of the complete listing of conditions and bequest requirements until this final form signing. Indeed it is conceivable that some, believing the have already read the conditions on the website, may not read the yellow form in its entirety. There may be others who gain the impression from the truncated web-site version that the Trustees no longer place great importance on all of the requirements.
Despite all that, the Trustees themselves are under a legal obligation to adhere strictly to the bequest of Archibald.
It is a matter of fairness to all artists that the AGNSW includes the invitation to submit paintings and all conditions, including their definition of a portrait for the prize on their website. It is also a matter of fairnes that the published requirements are strictly adhered to in any judging decisions.
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 archibaldchallenge@hotmail.com Any and all help will be greatly appreciated by a passionate but poor challenge team.
And The Prize For Court Action Goes To...
In 1846 Baudelaire wrote: " To justify it's existence, criticism should be partial, passionate and political, that is , written from an exclusive point of view."
In 1981 Anna Waldmann writing in 'Art and Australia' observed that The Archibald Prize has fulfilled Baudelaire's statement.
There may not be another art prize anywhere in the world that has attracted so much passion as to involve courts, judges, and Governmental legal advice. It all started in 1922 when the Trustees themselves sought to 'clarify' Archibald's bequest in the Supreme Court. They were advised not to proceed by the Crown Solicitor. His opinion was that it was unlikely the court would change Archibald's words for the Trustees convenience.
Further attempts were made by the Trustees to change Archibald's bequest conditions in 1929 and 1940 at which times they wanted to introduce size restrictions and make anew condition further restricting copies and the use of photographs.
In both cases the Crown Solicitor advised that the changes would restrict the artists freedom in ways not specified by Archibald. In other words, Archibald's original intent has always been paramount. This was apparent in 1943 with the Dobell case when the complainants lost despite their disapproval of the winning work. The Court ruled in essence that the complaint required an interpretation of the Archibald Prize conditions not contained in Archibald's original bequest.
In 1975 The Trustees took John Bloomfield to court because, they said his portrait was not painted from life as Archibald intended. The court agreed , and it's judgment is quoted at the top of every entry form.
The problem highlighted by the 2004 case is that his year the Trustees are still very strictly enforcing the "...from life" part of the provisions, yet at the same time choosing to reinterpret the "painted..." part of the whole phrase: "painted from life" so as to include drawings.
This might prove a problem for the Trustees as they face court. If the court follows the precedents set in every other case so far, then they are likely to rule that Archibald's original intent must stand.
Congatulations to Gary Shead for winning this years Dobell Drawing Prize. The competition has a reputation for quality and Sheads beautifulwinner can only enhance that reputation. His work is the living proof that poetry in art isn't dead yet.
Thank you to the anonymous supplier of the link to Shead's winner. (click on the title above)
ATTORNEY GENERAL GIVES GREEN LIGHT FOR ARCHIBALD PRIZE COURT CASE
I am pleased to announce that the New South Wales Attorney General, Bob Debus, has now issued his consent and authority to maintain these proceedings, pusuant to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act. I would like to think that consent indicates the support of the Attorney General for our pursuit of justice in this matter.
This removes the only technical impediment to the continuation of the proceedings, at least as far as they involve a charitable trust. It paves the way for the proceedings to be pursued expeditiously through the court system without further technical arguments regarding my standing to pursue the claim.
It is noteworthy that the Trustees,through their lawyers had vigorously opposed consent, and submitted to the Attorney General that his consent should not be provided in this matter. The Trustees had been reluctant to commence the substantial preparation of this matter for trial before the Attorney General resolved to grant his consent in my favour. That matter having been decided, the parties, and more importantly the Trustees can prepare the matter for hearing.
The matter is listed for a directions hearing at the Supreme Court tomorrow. It is expected that the Court will issue proceedural directions for the filing of further evidence by both parties, after which the matter should be ready for the allocation of a hearing date.
I would like to think that the matter can be resolved before next year's Archibald Prize,so that all concerned, both artists and Trustees can prepare without the court case hanging over our heads.
Tony Johansen, Kings Cross.
Court Schedule
Next appearance is 9:30am on October 7th at the Equity Division of the Supreme Court. This will be a short directions hearing originally scheduled for the 2nd of September. It was held over for a month when the Attorney General advised that he would need another 3 weeks to make his determination of his involvement in the matter.
The main hearing is still expected to occur as early as the end of this year, or early next year.
One of the biggest surprises of the Archibald Challenge was that some international publications covered the story. One of the best was/is Circa Art Magazine, apparently based in Ireland.
Meanwhile here is one anonymous comment on the site we liked (in full). From the local knowledge the contributor would have to be Australian. We will also publish other points of view from the same thread in other posts.We have corrected some of the spelling, and created paragraphs. Although we left the exagerated number of questioned pictures.
"I don't think anyone suggests the Ruddy work is anything other than excellent but there is no shortage of other competitions where it fits the criteria for that comp, including ones that pay bigger bucks. The point is if other works are excluded as not complying because they don't fit the Trustees interpretation of the bequest, eg a painted sculpture or even a video of a painted work (all of which fit the same elastic interpretation of Archibalds will as much as Ruddys work does) then so long as some are excluded and others accepted there is an inherent injustice occuring.
The Trustees themselves recognised some years ago that excellent work like Ruddys were not eligable for the existing comps at the AGNSW and instituted The Dobell Drawing Prize. Fairness dictates that the Trustees should have assessed the acceptbility of the Ruddy drawing in terms of the bequest, and maybe suggested the work be entered in the Dobell Prize. The evidence is that they didn't even consider the rules this year as I understand that there may be as many as 5 finalists being questioned for not conforming to one rule or another. Meanwhile the political nature of the prize means the rules are bent for some, yet when John Bloomfield bent the rules and claimed that even though his work was from a photo (as per modern practice) the Trustees took him to court and took megabucks off him.
As to adventurous artwork not possible under Archibalds original terms, just look at Whiteley's winner in the late 70's. If there are no adventurous entries that is the fault of the artists, not Archibald. All thats required is a level playing field that comes from applying Archibalds terms equally to everyone."
Benefactor, and patron of the arts, Jules Francois 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 humbler 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.
Thank you For Your Generosity
Challenging a major institution like The Art Gallery of NSW is not easy for struggling artists. It would not be possible at all except for the many tireless workers behind the scenes who between them have enabled the challenge to proceed this far.
Special thanks must go to a core group of angels who have gone beyond the call of duty. Thank you to Irena (who embodies the bohemian ideal), to Paul (who started the ball rolling), to Andrew (ever supportive), to Tesha, to Lesley, to Josh, to Animal (and all the Kings Cross Bikers), to John, to Don, to Jaqi, to Violetta, to Vesna, to Siren and Anakey and Jaqilen and Daylan, to Martin, and especially, to Paula, for putting up with it all.
Thank you to every one of you, and to all those who prefer to be less public in your support, or have supported by attending fund raisers or otherwise have helped out in less obvious ways.Thank you all.
Welcome to the Archibald Prize Challenge Blogspot. Expect the postings to be from various people and sources. Hopefully your FAQ's will be answered. So far the debate has reflected the media's need for simple messages. Our aim is to promote breadth of discussion and understanding of the issues involved.
We chose the Blogspot format for two very important reasons. Firstly, it allows an interactive debate with comments both welcome and easy to post. Secondly, many of us are relatively poor artists, and we appreciate the democracy that a free site like this engenders. Debate is essential to social justice, and that discourse needs to be as freely accessable as possible.
Please at all times be respectful of all people with the good fortune to share this wonderful world. It is a policy of this site to remove or hide any contributions that are inappropriately offensive or abusive to any individual, group, or organisation.
