The Archibald Prize: finalists for 2011

On viewing the finalists of the 2011 Archibald Prize one finds some remarkable works where much time and effort has been expended, varying from the realistic to the stylistic. Though must wonder what constitutes a serious effort when a few entries could pass for the work of kindergarten or primary school children. Obviously art is in the eye of the beholder, particularly if it moves them emotionally… but what constitutes meritorious effort must be another thing.

Remember the case where someone painted a blank canvas and the critics were raving. Another notable abstract masterpiece was reported to have been painted in a drunken stupor and according to legend, contains the embedded vomit of the artist. This is the 1952 work of the late American artist Jackson Pollock called Blue Poles. It is owned by the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra and considered to be Pollock’s most important painting.

Blue Poles was purchased in 1973 by the Whitlam Federal Government for A$1.3 million. It was the highest price ever paid for a modern painting, which created a political and media scandal. It is now one of the most popular exhibits in the gallery, and estimated to be worth A$180 million, pending the purchase by a willing buyer at that price.

So how credible is the art world?

In the free market a commodity is worth what someone will pay for it. How many are willing to maintain that price is another thing. In the case of one-off art, we’ll never know, unless someone purchases at a high price and others are prepared to buy it from them at an equal or more inflated price. Rarity seems another factor, where sadly the artist does not always benefit, yet the owner does after the artist’s demise.

Surely people must question something that looks like it has been generated with a minimum of time and effort, unless they be disadvantaged people who in some way lack the mental or physical facilities, but are trying their best.

To an onlooker, it seems there is an incredible degree of arrogance attached to the subject when questionable material is given an elated platform that is hard to comprehend. Either the critics possess some superior insight and appreciation that us mere mortals can never grasp, or the entire matter is a scam. Though tend to think its all subterfuge or snobbery, which others submit to as if compelled by some obscure incestuous peer pressure.

Talented cartoonists can produce clever and entertaining drawings that are instantly recognisable caricatures, yet minimalistic. These people are often well paid because they are so good at it and have wide appeal. At the other end of the scale can be found ticket writers who with a few strokes of a brush can create price labels for products in a shop widow. Each brush stoke is performed with great efficiency and precision, yet is hard for the average person to emulate. Calligraphy, is the art of producing decorative handwriting or lettering with a pen or brush, which takes ticket writing to the highest pinnacle. These skills deserve great recognition, though most of this work is low profile. They are not Hollywood stars, though their work may adorn the credits of many a great movie.

This brings us back to the simplistic scribblers masquerading as great art. While ever they can present a trendy facade and have critics who treat them as demigods, they will have mindless followers of fashion… as long as fools are spending their money and its not mine. But in the case of The Archibald Prize, which is regarded as the most important portraiture prize in Australia, one must question the motive of the selectors when they don’t accept classroom art from school children, yet some of the offerings seem to fall within that category? Most surprised that some of the city graffiti is not eligible too, if it were to feature people distinguished in the Art, Letters, Science or Politics? In my humble opinion, some street graffiti is streets ahead in the true talent stakes.

Link to: The Archibald Prize: finalists for 2011