National Contemporary Art Award winner
One person’s rubbish is another person’s art – an artwork resembling the contents of an upturned wastepaper bin has been announced as the winner of the Trust Waikato National Contemporary Art Award 2009.
Currently in its ninth year, the award is renowned for the challenging and often controversial entries it attracts.
This year’s winning entry ‘Collateral’ by Auckland artist Dane Mitchell was selected from amongst 43 finalists and 283 entrants from all over the country, with the announcement made at an award ceremony at Waikato Museum on Friday night. As the winner Mr Mitchell received $15,000 prize money sponsored by Trust Waikato.
Award judge Charlotte Huddleston, who is a well-known curator and essayist, and is currently the Curator of Contemporary Art at Te Papa Tongarewa the Museum of New Zealand, said Mr Mitchell had drawn on his real life experiences to create a thoughtprovoking piece of art.
“Dane's work responds well to his current situation, addressing, as is typical for him, the interplay of art, culture, anthropology, archaeology and his own situation within these systems.”
Mr Mitchell’s work is currently being exhibited alongside the other 42 finalists’ at Waikato Museum until 24 January 2010.
Trust Waikato
Comments
I don't know much about art, but I know crap when I see it.
As a NZ artist conversations about art are essential, but the only conversation this years winning work investigates, is whether it is in fact art. That, in my opinion is a shallow conversation and not worthy of top honours and $15K. Angered, yes I was. How insulting to NZ artists who toil away creating quality works only to be gazumped by a pile of trash. What message does this communicate other than to flip the birdy at those efforts and why for that matter would you bother to enter against that kind of ‘competition’. Surely terms of entry would state the work has to be created by the artist to be considered. This approach where 'cutting edge' (not that this entry is) to the point of ridiculous, is undoubtedly damaging to the NZ art community. It smacks of agenda, controversialism for the sake of it and will ultimately back-fire as we become the laughing stock in the eyes of the art world.
You can make a statement with art, but you still need the 'art' component.
I am a finalist in the National Contemporary Art Awards, and I've written about my response to this 'controversy on my blog, Bibliophilia
Meliors Simms www.meliors.net
10 September 2009 - 9:48 AM
Watch the Campbell Live interview on TV3 with judge Charlotte Huddleston and Waikato Museum director Kate Vusoniwailala.
Dane Mitchell, in Berlin for an artists residency, sent gallery staff instructions to use the discarded wrapping from the other entries and present the pile of rubbish as his entry.
I applaud the artist's concept!
I wish I had known about that show so I could have entered it.
One of the pieces I made and exhibited in a Wanganui Arts Review was considered trash and I was classified as 'untrained' by a local citizen.
To celebrate conceptual art I am posting my entry into the Wallace Arts Awards (which was not shortlisted I might add)....and have put it on TradeMe for a mere $15,000. It has been re-titled
I am now a citizen of Aotearoa
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Art/Photographs/Other/auction-241352824.htm
I am one of the other Waikato finalists this year. Although some media have suggested other finalists are up in arms over Dane’s win I have seen no evidence of this and affirm his finished work.
What does concern me is the journey from original idea to that finished work. The Waikato is a competition, and as such has terms and conditions all entrants must follow.
In the 'Close up' report on the Waikato competition Dane’s instructions were held up by the gallery curator, they read;
'INSTRUCTION FOR WORK
Retain all disposed and discarded packing material from the other works in the exhibition.
Leaving nothing out -include all bubble wrap, cardboard, plastic etc.
Pile all this material into a heap in the exhibition space.'
Then in smaller writing it read;
'This jpeg is not the work only an instruction in order that the work may be completed'
This last sentence interested me as I know in the terms and conditions for entry into the competition item 6 says 'An image of the entry is to be submitted with the website entry form'
Could this be Dane’s 'image', and if so is that really sticking to the conditions of the competition?
Item 7.10 in the same entry conditions states;
'Art works can not be changed or added to once they have been submitted', that’s pretty subjective in this case.
Item 7.2 'Employees of the Waikato Museum are not eligible to enter.' Maybe not, but allowed to make the work?
Once the judge had seen all entries on line she picked semi-finalists, these were delivered to the gallery for her to view and judge in person. That was mid July. My understanding is this is when the winner was chosen. This begs the question ‘did the judge ever see Dane’s finished work, or was it an instruction and the image it placed in her mind, rather than something seen that made him the winner?
Danes work has depth and smarts, but as a competition entrant the registrar must make sure all the terms and conditions of the competition are followed.
I just hope all have played by the rules.
'But Waikato Museum director Kate Vusoniwailala leapt to the defence of judge Charlotte Huddleston, saying it was "an excellent decision" which had helped achieve the objective of getting people talking about art.'
Well Kate, I don't think it necessarily got "people talking about art". Maybe it just got them talking about rubbish.
Given the disrespect shown by both Charlotte Huddleston and Kate Vusoniwailala to the other contributing artists to this award, it should not be called a "contemporary" art award but a contemptuous one. If these two "visionaries" think that these comments are strictly my creative imagination, and are offensive and rubbish, would they consider forwarding a cheque in the mail to me I wonder.