This seems to relate to the recent debates surrounding the 2004 winner of
the Australian Archibald Prize - Craig Ruddy's portrait of the actor David
Gulpilil. Not sure if everyone is aware but the work was in the news here in
Australia because another artist whoıd submitted to the show (canıt recall
his name) had challenged the identity of the work as a painting and its
ability to win the prize, calling it instead a drawing. The court ruled it
was indeed a painting and not a drawing and was therefore able to win the
prize. In case anyone isnıt aware the Archibald is a painting prize.
Ruddy works in mixed media and crosses boundaries (to use a well worn
analogy) between clearly defined practices of painting and drawing. I wonder
if anyone else has been aware of this legal challenge and has any comments?
My thoughts are the work does look like a OEDrawingı, but that association is
very strongly suggested by the linear nature of the work, and the fact it is
mainly black on a sepia background. The culturally arbitrary semiotic
reading of the image is a powerful one and does suggest OEdrawingı to me, but
Iım interested in throwing this one in the ring, as our recent discussions
have been around what can be a drawing, rather than what is considered a
OEpaintingı and not a OEdrawingı
Can it be both I wonder?
Craig Ruddy has his own rather flash website if you want to look at an
example of the work BTW.
Linda
On 31/8/06 7:41 PM, "David Lovegrove." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If sculpture is to be considered drawing, if a mark made by anything that
> makes a mark by anything that takes a mark is drawing,then this is a very
> broad ranging research subject we are discussing.
>
> A bullet makes a mark and a body takes a mark, but the victim would hardly
> agree that he / she had just been drawn on! (With all respect to the little
> girl, who is obviously bright and using her lateral mind.)
>
> In most peoples minds drawing means to make generally linear marks on some
> surface , and painting seems to infer that there is a broader covering of a
> surface with some wet / viscous media (or one that digitally duplicates it).
> Sculpture implies building up or manipulating in 3 dimensions, even if its
> virtual.
> And all of these, rightly or wrongly, imply that one does this to make the
> beautifully superflous thing called art.
>
> For drawing to be painting and sculpture and photography and whatever else
> one makes art with seems to defeat the purpose of our research discussion
> subject.
>
> David Stewart Lovegrove
> Dip Fine Art (Julian Ashton Art school)
> Master of Arts (Queensland College of Art, Griffith Uni)
> Visual Artist, Illustrator, Designer
>
Dr Linda Knight
Lecturer, Art Education
School of Education and Community Studies
University of Canberra
ACT 2601
Ph + 61 2 6201 2491
Fx + 61 2 6201 2263
E [log in to unmask]
Australian Government Higher Education Registered Provider CRICOS #00212K
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: this email and any files transmitted with it may
contain confidential or copyright material and are for the attention of the
addressee only. If you have received this email in error please notify us by
email reply and delete it from your system. The University of Canberra
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this
email.
|