PORTRAIT CONTROVERSY

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 October 1944, Page 6

PORTRAIT CONTROVERSY

MORE EXPERT OPINIONS. (N.Z.P.A. Special Australian Correspondent) SYDNEY, October 25. The third day of the action by a group of Sydney artists to restrain the National Gallery Trustees from handing over to William Dobell, the £5OO 1944 Archibald Prize money, saw unabated public interest in the case. The applicants claim that Dobell’s much discussed winning portrait of another Australian artist, Joshua Smith, is not a portrait, but a caricature. The action has aroused world-wide interest in art circles. Expert opinion given during the latest evidence included: — Doctor V. Benjafield, Macquarie Street, medical practitioner: “The portrait represents a man who has died and dried up.” Mr. John Young, a former Director of the National Gallery: “It is not a portrait, which must be a dU-dU business between the sitter and the painter. This is 85 per cent. Dobell and 15 per cent. Joshua Smith.” Mr. Frank Medworth, present Director of the National Gallery: ‘lt is a satisfying portrait. “It’s opponents’ views are out-of-date.” Mr. Lyndon Dadswell, a sculptor, whose work at the Victorian Shrine of Remembrance brought him national fame: “The portrait is an ornament for decoration as well as a fine characterisation.” Mr. Paul Haefliger, “Sydney Herald” art critic: “The portrait is a good likeness. Dobell stresses form to express motion. Rembrandt was criticised by his contemporaries lor the same reason.” Mr. Douglas Roberts Dundas, winner of the 1944 Wynne Prize for landscape: “A portrait is a particular artist’s serious impression ot an image of a particular person. Dobell’s picture of Smith is an effective portrait.” EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

SYDNEY, October 26. The hearing of the case in which the group of Sydney artists are asking the Equity Court to withhold the 1944 Archibald Prize money of ESUU, from the artist William Dobell, concluded to-day. The appellants claim that Dobell’s winning painting of Joshua Smith is a caricature, and not a portrait. Judgment has not yet been given. , Addressing the Court, Mr. Barwick K.C., (for the appellants) said that, when the late J.. F. Archibald made his bequest, “subjective” portraiture was not recognised in Australia. Therefore, Dobell’s prize-winning painting of Joshua Smith was not a portrait in the sense that it was intended in Archibald’s will. Mr. Dwyer K.C. appearing for National Gallery trustees (who made the award) submitted that all authorities quoted had shown clearly that there was no line of demarcation by which one could say definitely that Dobell’s disputed painting of Smith was or was not a portrait.

Earlier William Dobell himself gave evidence. He liked to think, he said, that his portrait of Joshua Smith .was in tradition of Rembrandt. Dobell added that he had never been called a modernist until he returned to Australia in 1939. In London he bad been regarded by art students as academic. He did not believe the picture of Smith was a caricature, nor was it distorted, as some witnesses

had said. He knew Smith intimately and had endeavoured to make manifest Smith’s character as he understood it. Smith was solitary, sensitive, talented and determined. He had added to the picture only what w 7 as within the province of artistic license. Dobell appeared nervous in the box, and at first spoke almost inaudibly. But, when the sincerity of his views was challenged by opposing counsel,

he answered warmly and sometimes angrily. Again, tq-day, many people were unable to gain admittance to the Court.