James Elias u5333810

ARTV2054
Short Essay
14. Provide an account of the William Dobell Archibald prize court case, and explain its significance both in
terms of Dobells career and reputation, and of the discourse of tradition and modernity.

The case that was brought against William Dobell and his winning entry
for the Archibald Portraiture Prize in 1944 was not only unprecedented in
Australian history; it became a microcosmic expression of the
contemporary debate of traditionalism against modernism in Australian
art and culture. James Gleeson writes, in his critical and autobiographical
study of Dobell, that the controversy provided a testing ground where the
forces of conservatism were marshalled in full strength against the
budding energies of the modern movement.1 The legal case proper was
brought against the artist by two unsuccessful entrants to the prize, Mary
Edwards and Joseph Wolenski, who called for the re-evaluation of Dobells
portrait of Joshua Smith on the grounds that it failed to fulfil the
qualifications of the Archibald will. Each, in their own way, advocated and
practiced traditionalist portraiture, and both were members of the Royal
Art Society. Together they urged the Supreme Court of New South Wales to
dismiss the Trustees decision upon the following terms, worth quoting at
length:
It is alleged that the picture is not a portrait but a caricature of
Joshua Smith, bearing a certain degree of resemblance to him
but having features distorted or exaggerated. Joshua Smith is a
man of normal human aspects and proportions, and is not
misshapen or deformed, but the picture is a representation of a
person whose body, limbs, and features are grotesquely at
variance with the normal human aspect and proportions. It is
apparent that the said picture does not represent any attempt
on the part of the defendant Dobell to make a likeness of
Smith[but is] an endeavour to depict him in a distorted or
caricatured form.2

The case was brought before Mr Justice Roper on the 23rd of October of
that year, and was to last 4 days. The plaintiffs summoned Mr J. S.
MacDonald as the first witness to the stand, who, in establishment of his
authority, identified himself as Director of the National Art Gallery of New
South Wales from 1928 1936 and National Gallery of Victoria from 1936
1941.3 After expressing his familiarity with the history of portraiture, he
claimed the tenets of such are universal. The world has agreed on the
definition of portraiture it excludes that4...First of all it has to be a

1 James Gleeson, William Dobell: A Biographical and Critical Study (Sydney:

Angus and Robertson, 1981), 115.
2 ibid., 115.
3 ibid., 116.
4 ibid., 118.

balanced likeness of an actual person..5 He was, however, unable to

provide an objective demarcation between portraiture and caricature,
claiming painters where not in the habit of reducing to formulae the
meaning of their art.6
Instead, MacDonald appealed to the subject of the portrait: If I had never
seen Mr Smith before, and someone said to me here is a picture of a
portrait painter, I would say No, that man could not paint a portrait. I
know Joshua smith can paint a portrait because I have handled his
portraitthat is a poor creature.7 The physical characteristics that, for
MacDonald, preclude the capacity for portraiture, are thus an elfperson, a person sick in both body and brainyou do not feel as if it was
your bounden duty to ring for the ambulance, as you do when you see
that sort of thing.8 Similarly, John Young, summoned on the second day
attested the portrait as: a biological absurdity. I think that no being
could live like that. I remember seeing in a textbook of psychiatry, some
pictures of poor sub-human creaturesthey developed very strange
proportions.9
Subsequently, the plaintiffs attempted a tone of scientific legitimacy
through the introduction to the stand of Dr Vivian Benjafield, a medical
practitioner. His opinion of the figure was that it represented the body of
a figure who had died in that position and had remained in that position
for a period of some months and had dried up[that] The normal human
neck has seven cervical vertebrae in it, and I think there would have to
be at least ten to get that length of neck.10 What is thus apparent from
these hearings is an attempt by the plaintiffs to estrange the figure of
Dobells portrait from the culturally sanctioned paradigm of
traditionalism; that is, to objectify the figure, and Dobells portrait, as a
grotesque modernist other.
Directly prior to Youngs appraisal of Dobells painting he was asked to
recount the formation of the modernist school in Paris and the history of
its manifestation in Sydney, Australia.11 Gleesons account of the hearing
becomes ambiguous at this point, but it seems as if Young was called on
to recount the genealogy of modernism in Australia as a rhetorical
method of association with Dobells painting. He states, significantly, that
They were considered gone quite mad.12 Youngs statement, coupled
with his aforementioned analogy of Dobells figure with certain biological
absurdities, articulates the more implicit case brought against the artist,
5 ibid., 121.
6 ibid., 121.
7 Gleeson, Critical Stud, 119.
8 ibid., 119.
9 ibid., 124.
10 ibid,. 124.
11 ibid., 123-124.
12 ibid.,124.

that is, the relationship between grotesque physicality and mental

deficiency.
Such an ideology finds its precursor in 19th Century Germany, where
notions of degenerate art were gaining currency. is epitomised in the
writings of Max Nordau, particularly his 1892 publication Enartung
(Degeneracy). In consideration of criminologist Cesar Lombrosos theories
of degeneracy, he addresses the:
vast and important domain into which neither [Lombroso] nor
[his] disciples have hitherto born the torch of [this] method the
domain of art and literature. Degenerates are not always
criminals, prostitutes, anarchists, and pronounced lunatics, they
are often authors and artists.13

For Nordau, the fin de sicle signified the degeneration of European

culture into lewd and slothful stagnancy; a growing contempt for the moral
and aesthetic structure of post-enlightenment society in favour of a
superficial aspiration to shock: each [artist] wishes to create a strong
nervous excitement, no matter wether agreeably or disagreeably. The
fixed idea is to produce an effect at any price.14 He criticised subjective
expression for its arbitrary narcissism; its inability to contribute to social
utility or morally determined imagery:
it is a habit of the human mind to project externally its own
subjective states. And it is in accordance with this navely
egotistic tendency that the French ascribe their own senility to
the century and speak of fin-de-sicle when they ought correctly
to say fin-de-race.15

This sentiment is an uncanny anticipation of MacDonalds, that: within

[portraiture] you have to work, and you cannot take liberties because your
ego is tugging at you.16 Indeed, MacDonalds view on eugenic ideals was
no secret; in 1931 he asked Australians to consider Arthur Streetons
landscapes as emblematic of national spirit, as a demonstration of the
elect of the world, the last of the pastoralists, the thoroughbred Aryans in
all their nobility:17
We are not only a nation but a race, and both occupy a
particular territory and spring from a particular soil. The racial
expression of others will not be ours nor the methods of
interpreting their own country and folk. We will be mainly
contented only with our own imagery expressed in our own

13 Max Nordau, Degeneration, trans. unknown (New York: D. Appleton &

Company, 1895), vii

14 Nordau, Degeneration, 9-10.
15 ibid., 2.
16 Gleeson, Critical Study, 116.
17 John Frank Williams, The Quarantined Culture Australian Reactions to
Modernism, 19131939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 196.

independently minded sons, and of these, in landscape,

Streeton is the protagonist.18

It is clear that the contorted form of Dobells painting had no place in

MacDonalds Arcadian fantasy; its very presence was a threat to the the
imagery upon which Australian national identity rested. As such, the
attempt to locate Dobells painting within the locus of Nordaus
degenerate modernism is likewise an effort to disassociate it from the
classical tradition from which the Archibald prize, a national symbol of
traditional portraiture, abstracts. Moreover, it is expressive of the
contemporary discourse of Australian art: to what extent would
modernism jeopardise the moral and aesthetic values that structure
Australias self-image?
The dramatic turn of the court narrative occurred upon Dobells summit
to the stand. He began by establishing an authoritative history of
academic credentials, including his prestigious tutelage and awards
received, before relating in detail the procedure of his portraits
composition. In regards to the sitter, Dobell recalls:
I knew Joshua for four or five years, just meeting him casually. I
did not really know him. I respected him and I still respect him,
but I always regarded him as a rather diffident type of person
and one who naturally calls for peoples sympathy; butI got to
know his real character. I found there was a determination that
amounted to stubbornnessI think I succeeded in sticking to my
guns as a draughtsman and constructing a picture worthy of the
name of a work of art, and I dont think I have distorted to the
extent that other witnesses have suggested. 19

What is significant here is Dobells insistence that his portrait does not
distort to the point of abstraction; that any exaggeration is intended as
an expression of character within the boundaries of academic
representation. When asked how he would judge his own work,
specifically: Is it modern or academic in your opinion?20 he answers that
he was not called a modernist until [he] came to Australia. In London I
was regarded amongst artists, and art students, as academic. When
asked to confirm that he did not regard himself as a modernist Dobell
answered No, definitely21 Referencing the inherent subjectivity of the
debate, he insists that his portrait is painted in the classical mode, that
you may not think it, I do.22
The fact that neither side of the debate was able to objectively determine
the essence of Dobells portrait indicates the epistemological inefficiency
of artistic discourse at this transitional point of art history. Meaning,
18 Williams, Quarantined Culture, 196.
19 Gleeson, Critical Study, 134.
20 ibid., 136.
21 ibid., 136-137.
22 ibid., 139.

however, can be inferred, if not from the actual line of reason, then from
the apparent intentions of the complainants. As such, it becomes
manifest that the considerable anxiety regarding Dobells portrait is due
not so much to its modernist properties, but to its lack thereof. Unable to
objectively define the work as modernist, the complainants are unable to
objectify the work as a modernist other, despite the aspects of
degeneracy and egotistic subjectivity the portrait demonstrates.
It is perhaps productive, then, to analyse consider implications of the
debate in light of more recent theoretical frameworks. Dobells painting,
then, through its transgression of the self/other duality of traditionalism
and modernism, manifests itself as the threat that seems to emanate
from an exorbitant outside or inside, ejected beyond the scope of the
possible, the tolerable, the thinkable,23 that is, it evokes psychologist
Julia Kristevas notion of the abject. The portrait, does not have, properly
speaking, a definable objectit is not [the] correlative, which providing
someone or something else as support, would allow [one] to be more or
less detached or autonomous.24 This abject presence, the form that
refuses identity with either subject or object, indicates the place where
meaning collapses.25 Dobells portrait, through its decomposition of
definition and objectivity, threatens the traditionalist self-image
necessarily defined by the other; relativistically, existing by virtue of what
modernism is not. The portrait thus acquires an agency, challenging the
conservative status quo, compelling a restructuring of definition and
meaning. What is familiar; traditional: the brushstrokes, the architecture,
the colouration of Dobells portrait, is encroached upon by the perceived
aesthetics of the degenerate other: the deformed and contorted aspects
of the subject.
Faced with the psychological aporia that is Dobells portrait, the
conservative opposition must acknowledge that the network of values
that structure traditional aesthetics is arbitrary; accidental, the result of a
contingent genealogy: in that thing that no longer matches and
therefore no longer signifies anything, I behold the breaking down of a
world that has erased its borders.26 This consideration indicates the
importance of Dobells painting in the history of Australian art. Through
its abject presence, its dissolution of the clear demarcation between the
traditional Australian self-image and the primitive modernist other,
Dobells portrait demonstrates the reductive and arbitrary qualifications
that categorise art and privilege traditionalism. It is perhaps ironic that
Dobells portraits very denial of archetypal and reified forms of
modernism allowed it to resist objectivity as a modernist other, granting
it the agency to directly and publicly challenge Australian traditionalism.
23 Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trans. Leon S. Roudiez
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 3.
24 ibid., 3.
25 ibid., 4.
26 Kristeva, Horror, 4.

The significant attention the case attracted expressed the desire of the
populace to identify themselves and each other in relation to the
changing values and the ideals that the onset of modernism demanded.
On the 8th of November, Mr Judge Roper announced that his ruling in
favour of the defendant,27 contending that the plaintiffs excluded the
work from portraiture, in my opinion, because they have come to regard
as essential to a portrait, characteristics which, on a proper analysis of
their opinions, are really only essential to what they consider to be good
portraiture28 in light of this essays findings, a perspicacious insight.
The Dobell case, as such, is historically emblematic of the victory of
expression over what was can be potentially read as a fascist aesthetic
authority, and Since[,] the anti-modernists have been a declining force
in Australian art and the modern movement has gone from strength to
strength.29
For Dobell, however, the court case proved to have a debilitating effect,
the victory of which was little compensation. He recalls how he was
persistently identified and ogled or hassled, and how even at his home at
Wangi he would here strangers through the hedge announcing This is
where the mad artist lives.30 Strain on the artists nerves resulted in
severe dermatitis, temporarily incapacitating the use of his left leg and
causing near blindness in his left eye. He did, however, return to painting
soon after, incredibly winning the Archibald Prize twice more.
Yet perhaps the greater victim of the court drama was Joshua Smith.
Dobell recalls:
he congratulated me when I painted it he loved it at first, but
then it won the prize and offended his parents so much that he
hasnt spoken to me since. They [the parents] arrived one
morning about 7:30 no, earlier than that because I wasnt out
of bed.31

They attempted to purchase the portrait but Dobell denied, fearing it may
be destroyed. The painting was in fact partially destroyed in a fire in 1958,
but was restored thereafter, albeit poorly. Joshua Smith broke a silence of
47 years in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, articulating the
unrelenting effects of the episode. He recalls how he felt like a a sacrifice,
deprived of both profession and personal dignity for the glory of Dobells
prize: "It's a curse, a phantom that haunts me. It has torn at me every day
of my life. I've tried to bury it inside me in the hope it would die, but it

27 Gleeson, Critical Study, 140.

28 ibid., 143-144.
29 ibid., 140.
30 ibid., 145.
31 ibid., 145.

never does".32

Bibliography
Gleeson, James. William Dobell: A Biographical and Critical Study. Sydney:
Angus and Robertson, 1981.
Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by
Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.
Nordau, Max. Degeneration. Translator unknown. New York: D. Appleton &
Company, 1895.
Williams, John Frank. The Quarantined Culture Australian Reactions to
Modernism, 19131939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
32 Janet Hawley, Encounter with Australian Artists (Queensland: University of
Queensland Press, 1993), 77.

Hawley, Janet. Encounter with Australian Artists. Queensland: University

of Queensland Press, 1993.