Aboriginal art buyers urged to call in watchdog amid white interference claims in APY Lands
The Indigenous Art Code has praised the ‘courage’ of whistleblower artists for outing authenticity concerns surrounding Aboriginal art.
The body that sets the ethical standard for the Aboriginal arts industry has urged buyers concerned about the authenticity of APY Arts Centre Collective paintings to call in the consumer watchdog, while praising the “courage” of whistleblower artists.
The Indigenous Art Code said on Tuesday collectors should report any suspicions about the provenance of their pieces to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission in the wake of a four-month investigation by The Australian that uncovered allegations by five artists of white interference in black art.
The development comes as The Australian reveals more detailed allegations about practices within the collective’s Adelaide studio, including a claim that white assistants were trained to “stay on” painters to ensure they adhered to the aesthetic of collective general manager Skye O’Meara.
“We acknowledge the courage it takes for artists to come forward,’’ a statement released by the Code said.
“If you have purchased any art work where you have concerns about the work’s authorship, or how the authorship was presented at the time of purchase, (the Code) recommends that you contact the ACCC.”
It would not say if it was conducting its own investigation into the alleged practices at APYACC.
The APYACC is a member of the Indigenous Art Code, which was established to clean out unethical practices from the trade. The board of the APYACC and its general manager, Ms O’Meara, have consistently and categorically denied white artists painted on Indigenous art.
The Code’s statement was issued as the National Gallery of Australia prepared to launch an investigation into the extent of “hands of assistance” in the APYACC studios, and came after two senior and respected Indigenous artists, Djon Mundine and Fiona Foley, called on the management of the collective to resign.
Several art buyers, who have purchased paintings worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from the collective, have spoken of their grave concerns, with one, Adam Knight, saying he could not purchase any more paintings from the collective while the current management remained.
The Australian can also reveal more details of allegations made by white studio assistants about practices within the collective’s Adelaide studio.
One of these assistants claimed staff were trained by Ms O’Meara “to stay on artist”. She claimed Ms O’Meara would do the outlines, “the sketch before the painting”, on the artist’s canvas and then staff would be told to stay with them to ensure the artists adhered to Ms O’Meara’s “aesthetic”.
“There are some artists who have a bit of a dependency on her now because, whenever they’ve done art work with (Ms O’Meara) not there, it has been deemed as not saleable,” the former gallery staffer alleged.
She claimed this had led to a uniform look to the paintings because Ms O’Meara was dictating the aesthetic.
“The saddest thing is that she compromised these ladies’ Tjukurpa, for her chosen aesthetic, which she would deem as whatever makes money,” she claimed.
She said a “huge percentage” of the artworks destined for Ngura Pulka would have had a white hand in them because it was with the big artists on the big works where most interference occurred. “It’s sad, but these practices became normalised.”
She claimed that if comparing works the artists produced when on their homelands there was “a significant difference” to the work they produced when they travelled to Adelaide to paint.
She said it was “disheartening to watch” as there was a great power imbalance between the artists and Ms O’Meara: “Especially when you are working with Aboriginal women who are elderly and quite unwell.”
The board and Ms O’Meara vehemently deny art Tjukurpa was interfered with or that artists were in any way mistreated.