arttalk
Sidney Nolan |
30 Jun 2006 4 comments |
Next year should see another arm-wrestle over the reputation of Sidney Nolan with a significant retrospective at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Nolan has always divided opinion. On one side of the table are those ancestors of genius, the 'my kid could have done that' brigade. Squaring them off are those who see him as an arist with an imagination like liquid mercury and the most significant non-indgenous painter that Australia has ever seen. I guess you can tell whose side I'm on.
The barbs against Nolan are many: too prolific, too many sloppy pictures, too many themes, can't draw, can't paint. It's not just traditionlists who poke the stick, many lovers of the now roll their eyes at the sound of his name. Nolan's use of irony is so well crafted, so porous to the emotions of fear, regret, and to the echos of myth, that his work can look too obvious to some viewers. If you like your art 'too cool for school' then the memory etched face of a Galipoli soldier isn't likely to be your thing.
And then there's the art market. For a while after his death Nolan's prolific output, combined with the relatively small size of the Australian population, seemed to suggest that there would be no end to the availablity of distinctive works. I would suggest that those days are long gone. One colleague, searching hard for works in the U.K., told of a conversation with a local dealer, the gist of which was, 'and if the Americans get hold of him.'
Posted in: News and Views
In his book on Nolan, Tom Rosenthal voices his suprise that the artist didn't do more scupture as these four works show his enormous capacity for the medium. Hopefully they will be shown in the retrospective. 'Roman Head" in particluar is a powerfully raw work.
Narrative based painters who embrace and seek to expound upon "big themes" are well and truly out of fashion these days. Anyone with an idea that extends beyond 'content driven' specificity is tagged "old school" in the worst sense of the phrase. My two cents worth on Nolan? Sure, a prolific and sometimes haphazard output. But when he cracked it, he cracked it with all the consummate brilliance of a human being and a painter who understands both his medium and the complexities of what it is to be human. That is genius, and i use the word in no uncertain terms. For the "too cool for school brigade?" Go back to your knitting...it's the latest "in" thing!
Very interesting to read this for me.. thanks.
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
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.
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
I think Nolan is a genius, he is definately a great ambassador for Austrailan Art. If anyone had ever seen his Sculptures "The gold Nolans" they where exquisite, they comprised of the "Tete d'Homme" (Gallipoli Head) "Roman Head", The Sphynx and the "She Monkey" something to truly behold when seen in real life. Why I mentioned his sculptures, I think it defines his magnatude as an artist not just on the paint. Yes, I believe it is only a matter of time before the Americans do get their hands on him especially when they discover the depth of his talents!"