Responses so far
Comment 1	As someone who runs a small scale art award in Auckland, New Zealand, I know the trouble that categorising by medium can cause and my opinion is that it comes down to the judges' option to accept the work at the time of entry as well as specifics and details of conditions of entry, such as that listed by the winning artist, that determines eligibility and hence conclude the work is a worthy winner.
Comment 2	i hate archibald prize
Comment 3	Archibald was a great man who gave a gift with conditions. We need to respect his will. The Trustees don't seem to consider that it is not their money it is Archibalds and the artist's. It is not fair to the other competitors when effectively a cake competition is won by a jam.
Comment 4	The Archibald is crooked at the best of times, 'mate'. At least it could pretend to stick to the rules!
Comment 5	Screw the rules, this is an artwork that deserved to win, it even looks like a painting, sure, it would of been very hard to get the effect of the hair in painting, the artist has certainly put alot of thought into his work, and who would have thought to put wallpaper from colonial english into the artwork? I'm really sure no other artist would have dared too.
Comment 6	I believe that art is branching out in so many different directions at the moment that without losing the importance and backgrond of the Archibald Prize which is personal expression to a portraiture , this competition or prize would not be able to grow. The Archibald has changed becoming more expressive, abstract and personal. That is why mixed media is a specification, it allows artists to grow become more experimental and it continues to lay the path that portrait painting has been travelling on within the last century. Craig Ruddy has produced an excellent artwork and it has been recognised as that, even if Ruddy is stripped of his prize on political terms no one will be able to strip him of his talent or his artwork of its asthetic and appealing qualities.
Comment 7	I don't think anyone suggests the Ruddy work is anything other than excellent but there is no shortage of other competitions where it fits the criteria for that comp, including comps that pay bigger bucks. The point is if other works are excluded as not complying because they don't fit the trustees interpretation of the bequest eg a painted sculpture or a photo with some paint and charcoal on it, or even a video of a painted work (all of which fit the same elastic interpretation of Archibalds will as much as Ruddys work does) Then so long as some are excluded and others accepted there is an inherent injustice occuring. The trustees themselves recognised some years ago that excellent work like Ruddys were not elegible for the existing comps at the AGNSW and instituted The Dobell Drawing Prize. Fairness dictates that the Trustees should have assesed the acceptability of the Ruddy drawing interms of the bequest and maybe suggested the work be entered in the Dobell Prize. The evidence is that they didn't even cosider the rules this year as I understand that there may be as many as 5 finalists being questioned for not conforming to 1 rule or another. Meanwhile the political nature of the prize means the rues are bent for some yet when John Bloomfield bent the rules and claimed that even though his work was from a photo (as per modern practice) the Trustees took him to court and took megabucks off him. As to adventurous artwork not possible under Archibalds original terms, just look at Whiteley's winner in the late 70's. If there are no adventurous entries that is the fault of the artists, not Archibald. All thats required is a level playing field that comes from applying Archibalds terms equally to everyone.
Comment 8	I have to admit i am what some people would call 'sitting on the fence'. I do agree with Johansen, that it is a 'drawing, not a painting', but I also can see it from Ruddy's side. How do we know that he didn't mix the charcoal with a little water and paint it on with a brush? The water would have dried and left nothing but a normal-looking charcoal effect. And, how exactly can you define 'mixed media'? The contest didn't specify the limitations to that, so why can't the competitors use what they want?
Comment 9	I would like to see a picture of John Bloomfield's portrait of Tim Burstall
Comment 10	Mixed media can include all forms of 'drawing'as well as charcoal, graphite and other similar mediums. Why not appreciate the artwork and accept that the judges have made their opinion?
Comment 11	I reckon Craig's portrait of 'David Gulphili' is unique and is ought to be awarded the Archibald Prize.
Comment 12	Hi everyone. I am doing a practice exam for Studio Art - painting / drawing and I have to express an opinion on the Archibald Prize 2004. I think that if he was allowed to enter the competition - knowing that the submission was a charcoal based work than he should be allowed to win it. Also the rules dont specify exaclty what other 'mixed media' allowed. YAY!
Comment 13	Craig Ruddy's is a great portrait with a great concept and theme which captures David very well. It deserved to win both prizes and if you don't think so that's your opinion. And besides, he did use paint if you didn't realise - he used charcoal, pencils and acrylic paint so there.
Comment 14	he won.
Comment 15	go art hahahaha so yep go who wins
Comment 16	I think the Archibald Prize is a great thing for school students to study in art. I found it hard to research for a winner of the Archibald Prize with all the information I needed because I had to look up more then 3 sites. This site gave me most of the information but I couldn't find the size of the painting.You need to have photos of the portriats actually in the gallery to give viewers a better veiw of what it looks like. I think the Archibald Prize is great and I enjoyed researching it for my year 7 project.

Back to top of page