(Sur)prizes

The reality of being an artist in Brisbane usually means struggling to make ends meet or working a day job and trying to make art on the weekends. Life is particularly hard if you're not represented by a gallery. Or a painter. Or making public art for fat cat corporations.

When the big art prizes come up, it can feel like entering the lotto. It's nice to daydream for a moment what it would actually be like to win one. That said, most administrators are reluctant to tell you exactly how many applications there were for fear of reducing future interest and prestige. It can be disheartening to know the odds. Feedback is an extraordinarily rare occurrence and fees can vary from the ridiculous to the sublime.

So how much importance is placed on the work, compared to the artist behind it?

Rarely is an individual work stronger than the reputation behind it. With most prizes, it's naturally going to help if you already have an existing profile, if you've had other work out there in the public eye or if you know the judges. Do we sound cynical? We are. Cynicism set in some years ago, on discovering that the judge of a major local art prize was sleeping with the recipient. But enough about that.

Art prizes are a great way to get your work in front of industry professionals. We should have more of them, with greater focus on supporting our local and emerging artists. In entering a prize, you're paying for exposure and that has value in it's own right. Prizes give artists the recognition and funds they often so desperately need. It just pays to do your research first. The Brisbane art scene is so small that industry incest is rife. One day, you may just find that the judge looks suspiciously like your first cousin ;)

Picasso: Queensland Art Gallery

With some trepidation, I recently ventured once more into the giant glass fishbowl that is the Queensland Art Gallery. I was shocked to discover it was $20 admission, although l did manage to procure a complimentary pass prior to my visit, so I can't really complain.

I saw a similar 'Picasso and his mates' show at the Tate some years back, so naturally I was curious to see what sort of works that QAG would choose. On entering, I was confronted by some huge photographs of Picasso at work in his studio. As an artist myself, it was nice to be reminded that studios are universally messy. Though since I'm not a painter, I don't have the paint splatters. The joy of living in a rental!

The next few rooms led us through a series of collections of works by Modigliani, Renoir, Cezanne et al. Call me shallow, but I was more fascinated by the vast array of gold frames than the paintings themselves. I also love people watching in large exhibitions, which seem to be the only time that the general public actually want to venture into the art gallery. Because, like, it's Picasso. Much as was the case for the recent Andy Warhol show. I hate that art work is assumed to be 'good', merely because of a name. Yes, I know it's the way of the world. Still. I do.

As usual in big institutional exhibitions there was much chin holding, arm crossing and a slow trudging line dance around the edge of each room. All we needed was Billy Ray Cyrus and it would have been a great shin dig. I almost did the macarena. A woman was leading a tour group through the exhibit talking about painted toenails. Perhaps she wanted to compliment the Surrealist works.

I've actually always wondered why so many curators feel compelled to paint the walls in a big show one dingy muted shade of green, claret or grey instead of the usual white. I don't think it did the Picasso exhibition any favours. I felt it drew attention away from the work itself to the framing. Harder to appreciate the subtlety of colour with a glaring background. Though, claret or green do go nicely with gold!

The backgrounds seem to have been chosen randomly, since to my mind, they drew nothing from the work that would not have been better served staying with plain white. Perhaps backgrounds add value for money. Who knows! There were also far too many works crammed into each space. It was a little claustrophobic.

The works shown weren't particularly remarkable or interesting. Perhaps Picasso just had bad taste in art. Except perhaps, for the fabulous surrealist erotique pencil sketches which were phenomenal. It's all subjective, anyway. I didn't feel the show gave me more of an insight into the world of Picasso - the studio shots did that.

Eventually, we were all shepherded IKEA style into the exhibition shop to behold a vast array of merchandise. T shirts! Mugs! Cards! Catalogues! No postcard of the erotique shots though, boo. Too risque for us Queenslanders, obviously.

Don't get me wrong; I'm happy to see Brisbane attracting the big names in art, but be nice to see some work by a female artist in there. Lord, even some local artists would be nice. Perhaps they might even stop running away to Melbourne!