As we come around once again to the ‘major’ awards in Australian painting, The Archibald, Wynne and Sulman, questions of relevance, taste and worthiness arise. These three awards attract the efforts of hundreds of artists each year in the portrait, landscape and genre fields, many of whom exhibit year after year in the hope of recognition or in some cases, repeat recognition. This affirmation, or conversely, this idea of rejection permeates the art landscape. There are winners and losers, by far the greater majority destined to be life-long losers by this measure. A level playing field? Some would suggest not.

There are two major retrospectives visiting our shores currently – The NY Metropolitan and the French Impressionists – plus yet another round up of the Heidelberg school lingering in our collective conscious as the pinnacle of Australian narrative art. While we appreciate anyone who wants to travel to the antipodes bringing with them our western cultural heritage [lack of international travel being what it is] the collective popular culture as promulgated by the art intelligentsia has a few problems, notably the lack of inclusiveness. You can’t change the past, loaded as it is with monumental male art figures, or a belief that the best of painting has already happened courtesy of European hegemony but attempts to redress the balance in favour of contemporary notions of inclusivity also have their flaws.

Although of course the packing room chief at the Art Gallery of NSW also gets a look in as the apocryphal ‘man in the street’ with the packing room prize for the Archibald portrait of the year even though his choice seldom aligns with those deemed of greater cultural significance who determine the eventual winner. At least his opinion is listened to and promulgated just in case another winner turns out to be beyond the comprehension of the general public and the ameliorating presence of a more reasonable voice is needed. The gallery packing chief was in no doubt when interviewed on national television as to what he and his crew look for. As far as he is concerned [and his fellow packers] a portrait has first and foremost to look like the subject. Questions of the gender or racial origins of the artist don’t come into it. Nice to hear.

The complaint [being addressed apparently] surrounding the Metropolitan Museum travelling show is its lack of diversity and the under representation of women and artists of colour. This is another example of the ‘dead white guy syndrome ’ and tokenism from a bygone age accordingly to critics who are sensitive to such things. The newspaper industry in Sydney has been quick to point out that the Art Gallery of NSW, being at the forefront of diversity and inclusiveness when it comes to art awards, awarded last year’s portrait prize to Aboriginal artist Vincent Namatjira and the packing room prize for 2021 went to a female artist painting a female subject. All bases covered it would seem and congratulations all round.

The same complaint could be aimed at the Heidelberg exhibition as well. Jane Sutherland, May Vale and Jane Price barely rate a mention up against the male heavyweights of Streeton, McCubbin and Roberts while the French impressionist afficionados begrudgingly acknowledge Mary Cassatt and Berte Morrisot as being there at the time but contributing very little. This was obviously a very different time in social role allocation and the time allowed by virtue of a private or inherited income but a century down the track and such divisions of art into gender, race, western, eastern still prevail. Apart from themes directly related to any of these divisions such as oppression or suppression, what value do they serve?

I recall another, what was to me, bizarre division. A worthy critic and art writer chose to distinguish between those of us that are left-handed and those that favour the right. He could identify the tell-tale shading gradient of the left hand and considered it worth mentioning in regard to the quality of a work – not that he favoured the left-handed at all unless it was Cezanne. He wouldn’t have even considered identifying righthanders in the same way because he no doubt regarded the majority position as right and the minority as inferior. It makes about as much sense as any other division.

Having said that though, the current crop of arguments surrounding the Turner Prize short list centre on just who is qualified to be in any of the collectives. Being demonstrably black as an artist will sit along being demonstrably of the non-binary gender groups when it comes to being recognised for making comments about black lives mattering or gender related issues. Only the divisive politics of the American diaspora are universally accepted as fair game – anyone can comment. Try that with China and the reaction is likely to be hostile. Ai Wei Wei can be imprisoned any number of times for artistic discussion of Chinese issues but he eventually gets let out unlike foreign journalists who may never see the light of day again.

As we venture deeper into the art award season you have to wonder whether the same rules apply as they seem to have applied with the Academy Awards. Who’s turn is it this year? You can be pretty sure it won’t be Tom Hanks in any guise in that he has several gongs for best actor under his belt and one more would make him the greatest actor of all time…and that simply can’t be true. Captain Sir William Alexander Dargie CBE won the Archibald Portrait Prize on eight separate occasions up to 1952, but then again, he was a real painter unlike current upstarts. But it is unlikely that a modern Dargie would even be considered given frequent revisions as to what a portrait is actually supposed to be or even look like. Photorealism went out of contention some time ago – unless you’re in the packing room representing reasonable humanity who knows nothing about art but knows what it likes and painting every hair on the subject’s head is the mark of the true artist.

But [and forgive my cynical slant on popularity and currency] who’s turn is it this year?

Arts Hub considers that Thom Roberts with his painting of Shane Simpson stands a good chance – Thom, ‘proudly working as an artist with an intellectual disability.’

Let’s hope that that is not the only reason.