arttalk
The Spirit and the Letter |
15 Jun 2006 6 comments |
Craig Ruddy must be a relieved man. After winning the 2004 Archibald prize for his portrait of David Gulpilil he found the decision to be contested by another artist, Tony Johansen. The dispute was over whether Ruddy's entry truly constituted a painting. The case was a near doppelganger of the watershed controversy surrounding William Dobell's portrait of Joseph Smith - except in that case the dispute centered around whether Dobell's work constituted a portrait or a caricature. Yesterday Justice Hamilton handed down his verdict on Ruddy's win. It isn't that the portrait was defined by the court to be a painting - rather the Judge pointed out that the courts aren't the place to be defining the qualities of different works of art.
What's interesting about this case is that the Judge expressed a view that decisions regarding the quality of an artwork should be left to those in the art world. Yet one can presume that he realised that consensus, especially in the art world, wasn't going to appear anytime soon. The subject of where or what is the 'art world' is best left to another post. However let's look at the main players in this game: two artists, the AGNSW and two art experts arguing opposing positions. It's reasonable to suggest that they are all citizens of the 'art world'. What's also obvious is that they haven't been able to agree as to if Ruddy's work is truly a painting. Many other similar debates over definitions of art keep cropping up. What constitutes an original print? When is a photograph a work of art? Whose work is a painting when it is largely produced by assistants in an artists studio?
Without trying to lay down the law myself it's my opinion that art involves the exploring and expression of alternate ways of ordering our experience of this world. I find it strange then so much time can be spent seeking watertight definitions of that which by its very nature seeks to resist being pinned down to rigid criteria. This isn't meant to displace the importance of a truthful description of how a work was conceived and made. However the great thing about art is that it is one area in life where no matter how hard one may try, no-one gets to be God.
Posted in: News and Views
Art is undoubtedly the domain of alternate ways of ordering and experiencing world. Thank goodness this is so.. ..I was refreshed by the court's decision, and am somewhat bemused by Johansen's need to defer to the adversarial system in seeking definitive answers in relation to Ruddy's work as a "painting." I'm not much of a fan of Ruddy's winning portrait -I've had about as much of photorealist grandstanding these past few years as i can take. Technique, technique and more technique with little soul. But that's not really the point. Extension beyond the bounds of traditionally prescriptive definitions and delineations seems to me to be a good thing, and in that sense, Ruddy's work was at least controversial (in an AGNSW just spicily controversial kinda way.) One other point to consider - artists of course love to BE god - I'd have to disagree with Combs there... which is why we sit in our studios all day long creating alternative universes from the vantage point of our big brush in the sky. Lord help the world if the artist's egocentric need for omipotence within the context of his visual domain was denied her/him!
You had me at "Hello" or rather, you had me at "Extension beyond the bounds of traditionally prescriptive definitions and delineations..." and things were going so well...
... but then you lost me when you left an 'n' out of omnipotence. I'm sorry it didn't work out.
Superb!
Hmm.. its very useful information for me :)
shemales and morris are correct... This brilliance is not about political rebuttal, it's just fricken fantastic
It's interesting, and somewhat ironic that court costs for this case have vastly outstripped the ammount of the prize awarded to Ruddy in 2004. Such is the great canvas of life.