Archibald prize: larger than life

Some Archibald entrants are too big and ugly, but by and large the standard seems to have improved

Archibald Prize 2011

THERE is some speculation, as the Archibald season gets under way, that last year's win by a very small painting would prove to have been an anomaly and the usual garage-door monstrosities will dominate the exhibition this time, as they have in recent times.

Spies were posted near the Art Gallery of NSW and very large canvases were photographed as they were unloaded and carried inside.

But not everything that goes through the door ends up on the wall; most of the paintings are rapidly consigned to an adjacent room, leaning against walls in their hundreds, after being eliminated by the gallery trustees.

In any case, whether because the general standard has improved or because the selection has been more competent than usual, this is the first Archibald for some time that one can walk through without wincing at every turn.

Last year's credible winner -- a portrait of comedian Tim Minchin by Sam Leach -- was of course an exception, even if it is far preferable to err on the side of too small than too big.

The natural scale for a portrait is life-size, although half to three-quarters is also acceptable. What is striking is how many reasonable pictures there are in the half to full-size range and even, at a pinch, one-and-a-half times; more than this becomes overemphatic. Of course, there are still plenty of hacks addicted to big heads.

Among the most appealing are several small pieces grouped close together, including a fine self-portrait by Lewis Miller, painted on copper, an unusual material sometimes used for precious pictures made for collectors in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Next to it is another little picture of Richard Morecroft by Peter Wegner; the comparison is interesting, for Miller tends to exaggerate colour and tone, but the result is that his image is legible from a distance, while Wegner's, though sensitive, is somewhat underarticulated in these respects.

Nearby is a good self-portrait by Pam Tippett, carefully considered and worked from life in a sober palette. Next to it is a portrait by Marcus Callum, also thoughtfully composed and executed but which has tell-tale signs of reliance on photographs: the rather flaccid sense of form, the lack of a sculptural feeling for the features and a soft-focus intended to mitigate the hardness of the source.

Next to these is a picture of Roy Ananda by Deidre But-Husaim, twice life-size and even more obviously, with its horrible air-brushed texture, indebted to photography. Why would you bother?

Read the full review in The Weekend Australian tomorrow