Talk:Archibald Prize

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who was Robert Campbell Esq - portrait of 1955[edit]

As far as I can work out he had been the director of the Art Gallery of South Australia. see page 19 He had been the first director of the Queensland Art Gallery. [1] he was also painter as per the Hotchin refernce.--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AGNSW database has the 1955 winner listed with keywords "Art Gallery Director" , thats not much help er.. I found this [2]
"In May 1955 the Art Gallery of South Australia’s Director, Robert Campbell, considered it important for the Gallery to establish a collection of Aboriginal art:
"The Director strongly recommends the establishment of a collection of Aboriginal work, as it will unquestionably be of the greatest interest in future years and many overseas visitors to the Gallery have asked whether we have any specimens. Although the [South Australian] Museum possesses a collection, they are regarded as anthropological objects and not as works of art""
Also a book refernce which is probably the same person here "Roberts, Tom Paintings of Tom Roberts / with an introduction and commentaries by Robert Campbell Adelaide: Rigby, 1963 " [3] Cfitzart 10:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
any moment now and we will have ot write an article on him :-)--User:AYArktos | Talk 10:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ive started one now :) - Robert Campbell (Art gallery director) ---Cfitzart 22:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable finalists? and List of Winners and section on entries[edit]

I am not sure if I see the point of the section Archibald Prize#Notable finalists. As the Archibald is supposed to be portraits of notable people, it would be expected that finalists would includeprotraits of notbale people. Perhaps if the section was refined to discuss pictures where commentators thought (not just a passing throw-away line)that a finalist of the Archibald was a very notable painting. Otherwise, perhaps these finalists could be mentioned int heir own articles - eg the article on William Dargie could mention that he was an Archibald finalist in 1981 for his protrait of Joh Bjelke-Petersen ...--A Y Arktos 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another suggestion to tighten up the article is to perhaps create a separate article on the list of winners. Alternatively perhaps the sections need to be reordered to have discussion at the top and winners as one of the last sections. Perhaps the section on entries could go higher up.--A Y Arktos 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed?[edit]

Is anyone willing to update the winner's details for 2007? Special mention should be made for that awful portrait of Toni Collette ;) Naysie 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone correct the 2345 year entry in the controversy section? 58.6.45.140 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'in australia'[edit]

does it refer to later part of a sentence, or to both parts? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it refers to both parts. In my opinion, the whole sentence would be clearer and lose nothing if the second part were omitted: "The Archibald Prize is regarded as the most important portraiture prize in Australia." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Competition?[edit]

It's called a "Prize" but is it not in essence a competition? Why does the word "competition" appear nowhere in the article? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible dating confusion: Pugh and Whitlam[edit]

Clifton Pugh won the 1972 prize for his portrait of Gough Whitlam. The portrait is titled "The Hon. E. G. Whitlam". However, until he became PM in December 1972, he had never held a ministerial portfolio and he was plain "Mr. E. G. Whitlam QC MP".

This leads me to wonder: When we refer to "the 1972 Archibald Prize", say, do we mean the one that was awarded in 1972, or the one that was awarded in 1973 in respect of portraits painted in 1972? The latter would be the only way Gough could have got his prenominal into the title. Unless it was re-titled later, perhaps.

There's a similar potential confusion with the Academy Awards. The ones awarded in 2014 are called the "2013 Awards" etc, because they are in respect of films made in 2013. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article says Pugh won for the "1973 Archibald Prize". It's written by someone who worked for Whitlam 1973-77, so it seems to have occurred during that period of employment. Yet this authoritative source says the "1973 prize" was won by Michael Boddy, and Pugh was a finalist with his portrait of David Williamson. Some confusion there.
(after more research) Ah, I think I see what's happened. There were prizes for each year up to and including 1990, then the 1991/92 prize, then the 1993 prize, 1994 prize etc. This strongly suggests that they changed their dating policy in 1991/92, from the year in respect of which the pictures were painted, to the year in which the prizes were awarded. This would neatly explain why the prize for Pugh's portrait of Whitlam, which was apparently painted after he became PM and was awarded in 1973, was called the "1972 prize", but why the prize awarded earlier this year was called the "2014 prize" rather than the "2013 prize".
I can't find any confirmation that this was what happened in 1991/92, but it also applies to the Wynne and Sulman Prizes. Can anyone help out here? We need to say something about this change of nomenclature in the three articles. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

$ difference[edit]

Prize money is cited as $100k for 2008 in the 2nd last paragraph. But $100k in section 1.1 and intro.

Maybe the diff is “total prize money” versus first prize money?

MBG02 (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archibald_Prize&oldid=1205303009"