WEBVTT - The balcony 2 0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:03.930 A quick heads-up in this series: we talk about drug use, mental 0:00:03.930 --> 0:00:06.060 health issues, and there's a bit of swearing. 0:00:16.680 --> 0:00:17.480 Welcome to the Brett Whiteley Studio. Have you been here before at all? 0:00:17.489 --> 0:00:20.570 I'm Fenella Kernebone and this is 'Art, life and the other thing'. I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land 0:00:20.570 --> 0:00:24.549 on which this podcast was made, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. 0:00:24.750 --> 0:00:28.630 This podcast is about Brett Whiteley and the big questions his 0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:33.120 work brings up about the Australian arts landscape. In each episode, 0:00:33.120 --> 0:00:36.320 I sit down with some of Australia's most exciting contemporary 0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:39.990 artists and curators at the Brett Whiteley Studio to talk 0:00:39.990 --> 0:00:43.400 about his work and how it's impacted on their own careers. 0:00:43.940 --> 0:00:46.260 In this episode, we're looking at one of Brett Whiteley's 0:00:46.260 --> 0:00:51.070 most recognisable paintings, 'The balcony 2'. To to see the piece online, 0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:58.470 go to agnsw.art/bwspodcast. This piece is part of a series 0:00:58.470 --> 0:01:01.980 Brett painted at his home in Lavender Bay in Sydney's north, 0:01:01.990 --> 0:01:04.480 looking out at the view of Sydney's harbour. 0:01:04.490 --> 0:01:07.819 It's a very joyful picture, and I think this painting 0:01:07.819 --> 0:01:12.110 is about one of the slightly underrated but incredibly important 0:01:12.110 --> 0:01:15.890 things that drove Brett Whiteley's art, and that was the 0:01:15.890 --> 0:01:16.960 love of beauty. 0:01:17.640 --> 0:01:20.670 Anne Ryan is curator of Australian art at the Art 0:01:20.670 --> 0:01:23.449 Gallery of New South Wales. She says while we often 0:01:23.450 --> 0:01:27.070 expect art to be serious, with meaningful and often political 0:01:27.069 --> 0:01:30.050 messages, it's not always this way like with 'The balcony 2'. 0:01:31.340 --> 0:01:34.420 Sometimes art can just be about what makes us happy 0:01:34.430 --> 0:01:37.960 and what is beautiful. It's a very lyrical picture, and 0:01:37.970 --> 0:01:41.890 by lyrical I mean, it has a great sense of 0:01:41.900 --> 0:01:44.170 ease in the way that the forms are painted. The 0:01:44.170 --> 0:01:50.130 forms are recognisable. In this picture, we can see trees, boats, structures, 0:01:50.140 --> 0:01:55.300 the landforms, and we can see the shimmer of light 0:01:55.300 --> 0:01:58.450 on the blue water of Sydney Harbour. But also there's 0:01:58.450 --> 0:02:00.870 a sense of abstraction about this picture as well, which 0:02:00.870 --> 0:02:03.480 I think is very appealing. So while we know what 0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:06.040 we're looking at and we know where we are with 0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:10.810 this picture, the lyricism of it, the poetry of it 0:02:10.820 --> 0:02:14.350 is the sense of evoking the feeling of what it 0:02:14.350 --> 0:02:19.950 is to see and to experience this place and this subject. 0:02:19.960 --> 0:02:23.050 'The balcony 2' is considered by many to be one 0:02:23.050 --> 0:02:27.510 of Australia's greatest artworks. But how does one painting gains 0:02:27.510 --> 0:02:28.630 such celebrity? 0:02:28.639 --> 0:02:32.550 Occasionally an artist or a picture will come along that 0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:36.080 really strikes a chord with how people feel about a place. 0:02:36.090 --> 0:02:40.160 If you think about the paintings of Fred Williams for example, 0:02:40.770 --> 0:02:45.270 that sense of the of scrubby dryness of the Australian 0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:51.139 bush, once you see that, you sort of understand it and 0:02:51.139 --> 0:02:54.050 you wonder why no one ever did it before. And 0:02:54.050 --> 0:02:56.070 it's the same with this picture by Brett Whiteley of 0:02:56.070 --> 0:03:01.940 Sydney Harbour. This lovely, hedonistic, outdoorsy feeling of how we'd 0:03:01.940 --> 0:03:06.560 like Sydney to be and the best face of Sydney. Obviously, 0:03:06.560 --> 0:03:09.889 Sydney is not just the harbour. It's not just beautiful boats, 0:03:09.889 --> 0:03:13.860 it's not leisure, it's not the beautiful, graceful arc of the 0:03:13.870 --> 0:03:16.860 Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. But it is something, 0:03:16.870 --> 0:03:21.079 and it is something that we treasure as being distinctively 0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:25.360 Sydney and distinctively ours, and so occasionally a painting such 0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:27.880 as this will come along that really does strike that chord 0:03:27.880 --> 0:03:29.940 and stays with us. 0:03:29.940 --> 0:03:33.350 Yeah, it makes you feel happy when you look at it. 0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:34.870 It's a picture that I think of when I think 0:03:34.870 --> 0:03:36.790 of Brett Whiteley. This is the one that [when] you come 0:03:36.790 --> 0:03:38.630 into the Art Gallery as a kid – when I was a kid, 0:03:38.630 --> 0:03:41.430 at least in the eighties – this was the picture that 0:03:41.430 --> 0:03:44.300 was right there on the mezzanine on that foyer there. 0:03:44.310 --> 0:03:46.110 But then when you look at it, you're right. You 0:03:46.110 --> 0:03:47.860 feel like you can just jump in there and have 0:03:47.860 --> 0:03:50.050 a swim. So what is it about this work that 0:03:50.050 --> 0:03:52.710 just makes, I don't know, it makes you feel like you're 0:03:52.710 --> 0:03:53.350 at home? 0:03:53.940 --> 0:03:58.529 You know, those dreams you have when you're flying? This 0:03:58.530 --> 0:04:02.440 work evokes that feeling. For me, it feels like something 0:04:02.440 --> 0:04:04.900 that you want to be part of and this painting makes 0:04:04.900 --> 0:04:06.260 you part of that. 0:04:07.740 --> 0:04:11.570 Brett Whiteley's former wife, Wendy Whiteley, has her own ideas 0:04:11.580 --> 0:04:14.660 about why this painting achieved its status. 0:04:15.140 --> 0:04:17.800 This is a very well known, probably the best known 0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:21.250 of Brett's harbour pictures. First of all, it's got the balcony, 0:04:21.250 --> 0:04:24.880 which we used to look out over across the top 0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:27.790 of the Moreton Bay fig, which has now doubled in height, so 0:04:27.970 --> 0:04:31.990 it's much more difficult. The view, it has the bird, 0:04:31.990 --> 0:04:34.770 which he used a lot, flying across it. It's got 0:04:34.770 --> 0:04:38.360 a plum tree and in the left hand lower corner, 0:04:38.839 --> 0:04:42.630 it's got the bridge, and then the introduction of this edge, 0:04:42.630 --> 0:04:45.740 the white edge. It's very clear in this one. And 0:04:45.740 --> 0:04:49.320 that denotes the artist being on the inside of a building, 0:04:49.320 --> 0:04:52.830 looking out of a window frame, which is kind of 0:04:52.839 --> 0:04:56.359 the way of making both the interior exist in your 0:04:56.360 --> 0:05:00.610 mind and the outside, the view being the outside of 0:05:00.610 --> 0:05:02.990 the window frame, which is that white line that goes 0:05:02.990 --> 0:05:06.140 around the outside. So once again it's an attempt at two 0:05:07.230 --> 0:05:10.450 kinds of perspectives. The balcony has a three dimensional thing, the 0:05:10.589 --> 0:05:13.760 boats are very flattened, the bridge has got a 3D thing; 0:05:14.140 --> 0:05:19.760 it's that double distance that Brett uses, more often than not. 0:05:20.540 --> 0:05:24.090 The painting has been described as having a flat picture plane, 0:05:24.100 --> 0:05:27.059 meaning there's no depth of field, and the objects don't 0:05:27.060 --> 0:05:30.000 look in proportion to each other. But Wendy says the 0:05:30.000 --> 0:05:32.770 way Brett applied the paint means there's a depth to 0:05:32.770 --> 0:05:35.960 the colour and hence a sense of depth to the water. 0:05:36.740 --> 0:05:39.839 Well, this is paint on canvas, of course. So when 0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:43.400 he paints on canvas the paint is very much thinner than, 0:05:43.400 --> 0:05:46.300 you know, thinner layers so you can see in the blue. 0:05:46.300 --> 0:05:49.010 In this - which Brett became very well known for, the blue, 0:05:49.010 --> 0:05:51.350 this use of the blue, but it's not a flat 0:05:51.350 --> 0:05:54.650 blue - you can see that there are dark shades coming through 0:05:54.650 --> 0:05:57.860 the blue itself and because it's on canvas that's very 0:05:57.860 --> 0:06:00.740 thin layers put on and then rubbed back with a 0:06:00.740 --> 0:06:04.409 rag so the paint doesn't get too thick. So it's 0:06:04.410 --> 0:06:08.789 the opposite of somebody painting emotion with very thick paint. 0:06:08.800 --> 0:06:11.670 But it gives a kind of subtle colour to the 0:06:11.670 --> 0:06:16.020 water that, it's not just a big, flat plane itself. 0:06:16.020 --> 0:06:20.789 It's got depths and shadows, things going on, even though 0:06:20.790 --> 0:06:23.659 overall it strikes you as being very blue. 0:06:24.140 --> 0:06:28.240 When we consider what makes an artwork recognisable, subject matter 0:06:28.240 --> 0:06:31.150 plays a big role. In this case, we can't ignore 0:06:31.150 --> 0:06:34.500 the fact that 'The balcony 2' is a painting of a very 0:06:34.500 --> 0:06:38.760 famous landscape. But how does a now iconic painting fit 0:06:38.850 --> 0:06:43.060 in amongst other great landscape paintings? Here's Anne Ryan again. 0:06:43.440 --> 0:06:46.700 Some of the most exciting and amazing landscape pictures, of course, 0:06:46.700 --> 0:06:52.279 are by Indigenous artists in Australia. As time has gone on, 0:06:52.279 --> 0:06:55.760 and as we have had more experience of the Australian landscape, 0:06:55.770 --> 0:07:01.580 we see the multiplicities of Australian landscapes and places. For 0:07:01.580 --> 0:07:05.740 some artists, it was the outback, like Albert Namatjira: it was his 0:07:05.740 --> 0:07:09.130 Country up there at Herrmannsburg. For Fred Williams, it was 0:07:09.130 --> 0:07:13.650 the dry, scrubby land of regional Victoria or New South Wales. For 0:07:14.610 --> 0:07:18.120 Brett Whiteley it was Sydney Harbour. And let's face it, 0:07:18.120 --> 0:07:23.060 most of us live in the urban fringes of this continent. 0:07:23.540 --> 0:07:27.040 It's the landscape that we actually live with, and in Sydney 0:07:27.040 --> 0:07:30.190 we live with that big expanse of blue water. And 0:07:30.190 --> 0:07:33.260 so for him, he was claiming that bit of Australia 0:07:33.940 --> 0:07:37.910 for his own art in a way that artists before 0:07:37.910 --> 0:07:40.360 him and artists after him have claimed their own bit 0:07:40.360 --> 0:07:44.160 of Australia and their own landscape within that big tradition 0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:46.190 of the Australian landscape. 0:07:51.940 --> 0:07:55.750 Claiming a patch of dirt and depicting their own landscapes 0:07:55.760 --> 0:07:59.990 is what many artists do: painting streetscapes, suburban houses, city 0:07:59.990 --> 0:08:03.990 lights or the bush that borders their hometowns. One contemporary 0:08:03.990 --> 0:08:07.970 artist who subverts the traditional idea of the landscape is 0:08:07.980 --> 0:08:09.090 Abdul Abdullah. 0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:11.670 My name is Abdul Abdullah, and I'm an artist. Originally 0:08:11.670 --> 0:08:14.330 from Perth, but now I'm based and live in Sydney. 0:08:14.350 --> 0:08:17.040 I work mostly with painting, but across all sorts of 0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:20.160 different mediums, so sculpture and video and installation. 0:08:20.340 --> 0:08:24.429 Abdul is a five-time Archibald Prize finalist. He was also 0:08:24.430 --> 0:08:27.910 a finalist in the 2020 Sulman Prize and a finalist 0:08:27.920 --> 0:08:32.030 in the 2019 Wynne landscape prize. He was selected as 0:08:32.030 --> 0:08:35.250 a Wynne finalist with a work called 'A terrible burden'. 0:08:35.640 --> 0:08:39.740 It's a beautiful oil painting on linen of rolling green hills, 0:08:39.750 --> 0:08:43.390 moody clouds and an imposing mountain range in the background, 0:08:43.400 --> 0:08:46.610 with the words 'a terrible burden' scrawled over the top 0:08:46.620 --> 0:08:50.110 in white. The work is a commentary on how white 0:08:50.120 --> 0:08:54.000 artists and colonists have claimed the Australian landscape as their 0:08:54.000 --> 0:08:57.220 own and not necessarily shared it fairly with the original 0:08:57.220 --> 0:09:02.040 custodians and later migrant arrivals. Looking at a painting like 'The balcony 2' 0:09:02.880 --> 0:09:05.860 with Abdul, I wanted to know how it stacks up 0:09:05.870 --> 0:09:07.800 against his own views of Sydney. 0:09:07.890 --> 0:09:10.020 The way that the blue has been applied compared to 0:09:10.020 --> 0:09:12.770 the white marks over the top and then the edge 0:09:12.770 --> 0:09:15.970 of the balcony, which is in the foreground and then 0:09:15.970 --> 0:09:19.270 the bridge in the distance, those types of things are very 0:09:19.270 --> 0:09:24.690 iconically Sydney, I think. Iconically Sydney, especially for me, coming 0:09:24.690 --> 0:09:26.709 from Perth and not really knowing Sydney. What I knew 0:09:26.710 --> 0:09:29.679 of Sydney before moving here was the Opera House and 0:09:29.679 --> 0:09:32.010 Circular Quay. Now living in Sydney, it's a bit of 0:09:32.010 --> 0:09:36.340 a different experience. That particular view of Lavender Bay says 0:09:36.340 --> 0:09:38.440 something else. I guess it's a view from a particular 0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:41.079 part of Sydney that I'm less familiar with even now 0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:45.900 living in Sydney. So it's again another sort of strange 0:09:45.900 --> 0:09:49.780 relationship with that type of iconic imagery and what it 0:09:49.780 --> 0:09:53.059 represents and who it serves and whose vision it is 0:09:53.540 --> 0:09:55.480 in a 2020 context. 0:09:55.520 --> 0:09:57.460 Well, tell me a bit about that. Whose vision is 0:09:57.460 --> 0:10:01.489 it in a 2020 context? How do you perceive this 0:10:01.830 --> 0:10:03.250 painting today? 0:10:03.260 --> 0:10:04.760 I don't want to sound too much like an arsehole, 0:10:04.760 --> 0:10:08.740 but it sounds for me ... When I look at that 0:10:08.740 --> 0:10:12.420 image, now it's the view from a very wealthy person's apartment 0:10:12.429 --> 0:10:15.930 of a very nice, expensive view that seems so distant 0:10:15.929 --> 0:10:17.810 from where I grew up and the people that I 0:10:17.809 --> 0:10:20.710 grew up with. So it's foreign and I almost feel 0:10:20.710 --> 0:10:23.960 like a tourist in my own city looking at that image. 0:10:24.640 --> 0:10:26.880 Of course, when Brett and Wendy moved into the flat 0:10:26.890 --> 0:10:29.750 in North Sydney, the area wasn't what it is now. 0:10:29.760 --> 0:10:33.440 It was an affordable haven for artists back then with 0:10:33.440 --> 0:10:37.010 world-famous views, of course. Do you think of it as an 0:10:37.010 --> 0:10:39.760 iconic landscape in Australia? 0:10:39.770 --> 0:10:45.699 It is in the fact that it's like, well known, like I've 0:10:45.700 --> 0:10:49.110 known this painting since... it's like the very first paintings that 0:10:49.890 --> 0:10:53.070 I've seen, but I don't know where it sits for 0:10:53.070 --> 0:10:56.109 me personally in the idea of the iconic Australian landscape 0:10:56.120 --> 0:10:59.790 and even the phrase 'iconic Australian landscape' is always sat 0:10:59.790 --> 0:11:03.710 kind of funny with me, particularly from a colonial and 0:11:03.720 --> 0:11:07.540 white Australian perspective, the idea of taking ownership or taking, 0:11:07.660 --> 0:11:10.890 claiming a space as somebody's own. And I'm also very 0:11:10.890 --> 0:11:14.080 critical of the idea of genius, especially when it's applied 0:11:14.080 --> 0:11:18.059 to an artist as a way to sort of justify some 0:11:18.540 --> 0:11:25.150 behaviours that are perhaps ungenerous or unkind. So it's a relationship 0:11:25.160 --> 0:11:28.979 with paintings like this and a history of Australian painting that 0:11:28.980 --> 0:11:31.160 is often really quite uncomfortable. 0:11:31.540 --> 0:11:34.110 The way that we look at the landscape today, the 0:11:34.110 --> 0:11:36.699 way that you look at the landscape today - considering the 20-plus 0:11:37.020 --> 0:11:40.890 years of conversation and potential change that might have happened 0:11:40.890 --> 0:11:45.070 in this country - what is the different conversation, particularly for you, 0:11:45.070 --> 0:11:47.150 that you're trying to get across that may not appear in 0:11:47.150 --> 0:11:49.750 a painting like 'The balcony 2' in terms of the landscape? 0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:53.230 It's a difficult one in particular with that painting to 0:11:53.230 --> 0:11:57.699 disconnect it from its value in being read as 'this 0:11:57.700 --> 0:12:01.020 is a painting that's really, really, really expensive' and to 0:12:01.030 --> 0:12:05.160 remove that cost or that market value away from it, 0:12:05.170 --> 0:12:07.850 and to remove the context of who Brett Whiteley was 0:12:07.850 --> 0:12:10.059 in the Australian imagination... If I was to look at 0:12:10.059 --> 0:12:12.910 that painting, I'd go, 'Oh, that's a nice painting', but that's 0:12:13.220 --> 0:12:15.839 as far as it would go. For me, it represented 0:12:15.840 --> 0:12:20.150 an attitude of a generation of Australian artists that felt 0:12:20.540 --> 0:12:23.540 a certain sense of entitlement to the space. They exist 0:12:23.540 --> 0:12:27.740 in a certain sense of entitlement over the discourse that 0:12:27.750 --> 0:12:33.590 for me, excluded alternative, marginalised, black and brown voices in 0:12:33.590 --> 0:12:36.130 the way that they spoke. So it's part of an 0:12:36.130 --> 0:12:41.059 ongoing conversation and discourse that's developing in my own arguments. 0:12:41.059 --> 0:12:45.960 I don't have a clear and concise argument about it. 0:12:47.540 --> 0:12:51.740 Abdul was first introduced to Brett Whiteley's artwork in high school, 0:12:51.750 --> 0:12:54.189 and this is still the way that many Australians first 0:12:54.190 --> 0:12:57.500 come to learn about Brett's work, helping to cement his 0:12:57.500 --> 0:13:01.860 legacy with the next generation. But just what is that legacy, 0:13:01.870 --> 0:13:04.270 and is it something that we still need to know about? 0:13:04.280 --> 0:13:05.880 Or is it time for a shift? 0:13:05.890 --> 0:13:08.260 Well, I can give you a crafty answer ... 0:13:08.340 --> 0:13:10.610 This is Adam Douglas Hill. 0:13:10.870 --> 0:13:16.190 My art moniker is Blak Douglas and I work out of Marrickville, originally 0:13:16.190 --> 0:13:21.380 hail from Dharug Country in Western Sydney. Look, we we 0:13:21.380 --> 0:13:27.460 take our hats off to Brett for being pretty much a [Jean-Michel] Basquiat 0:13:29.020 --> 0:13:36.790 of Australian art. But the fundamental dilemma is why has 0:13:36.790 --> 0:13:41.660 no other artists come close to being a successive finalist in 0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:42.890 all three awards? 0:13:43.540 --> 0:13:47.030 Blak Doulas is a three-time Archibald finalist, a finalist in 0:13:47.030 --> 0:13:50.559 the Wynne landscape prize and has won the Kilgour portrait prize. 0:13:51.240 --> 0:13:54.670 Trained as a graphic designer, Blak Douglas' paintings are strongly 0:13:54.670 --> 0:13:58.170 influenced by graphic design. They're big and they're bright. But 0:13:58.170 --> 0:14:01.080 if you look closely, you'll see thick dabs of paint 0:14:01.090 --> 0:14:03.330 and the mark of the brush. And if you look 0:14:03.330 --> 0:14:07.190 even closer, you'll see political commentary about social justice, the 0:14:07.190 --> 0:14:11.540 environment and the dispossession of Aboriginal land and culture. When 0:14:11.540 --> 0:14:14.890 it comes to a legacy like Brett Whiteley's, Blak Douglas says, 0:14:14.900 --> 0:14:15.960 'It's complicated.' 0:14:16.920 --> 0:14:24.890 There are many dilemmas with his superstardom status. A male 0:14:24.900 --> 0:14:29.580 who got that status, so there really hasn't been a female ... 0:14:29.580 --> 0:14:33.040 But if there has been a female come close to 0:14:33.040 --> 0:14:36.960 having the same status, I'm very happy to say that 0:14:37.440 --> 0:14:42.880 that's probably Emily Kngwarreye. And these are moulds that we 0:14:42.880 --> 0:14:47.870 need to break for obvious reasons. Also, when are we 0:14:47.870 --> 0:14:51.890 going to see an Aboriginal artist celebrated to this extent, save for 0:14:52.310 --> 0:14:55.910 what I just said of Emily? But it seems like 0:14:55.910 --> 0:15:00.400 Brett has succeeded in this, you know, superstardom, idyllic artist kind 0:15:00.400 --> 0:15:05.300 of artistic lifestyle. And it's just been bottled and put 0:15:05.300 --> 0:15:09.410 on a shelf for museum purposes, you know? And I 0:15:09.410 --> 0:15:11.930 guess this being able to visit this studio isn't it 0:15:11.940 --> 0:15:16.390 is a perfect example of that. So there needs to 0:15:16.390 --> 0:15:21.260 be more celebrated roughness around the edges in art, and 0:15:21.640 --> 0:15:23.970 there are obvious reasons why that doesn't happen. But I'm 0:15:23.970 --> 0:15:27.960 really hoping that those constraints shrivel up and blow away 0:15:27.960 --> 0:15:28.750 really quickly. 0:15:29.240 --> 0:15:31.080 And there's something about the era too. I mean, this is sort 0:15:31.080 --> 0:15:34.040 of the sixties - fifties, sixties, seventies - there was this time, 0:15:34.040 --> 0:15:36.500 it was male, it was white. This is how it could 0:15:36.510 --> 0:15:40.370 happen and perpetuate, and here we are today. You know, nobody gets 0:15:40.370 --> 0:15:43.480 celebrated in quite the same way necessarily today. So maybe 0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:45.030 there is a change or a shift. 0:15:45.220 --> 0:15:48.600 Well, I'll tell you one example of why it's unlikely to change ... 0:15:51.530 --> 0:15:54.380 let's be generous and say the next decade and that's because 0:15:54.380 --> 0:16:00.120 the conservatism of this place is either going to be 0:16:00.120 --> 0:16:05.960 disbanded or it's going to worsen. And that's a tremendous 0:16:05.970 --> 0:16:09.600 impediment on art, as we know. And we see that 0:16:09.600 --> 0:16:12.860 happening right now in the cuts of funding and whatever. 0:16:13.440 --> 0:16:17.830 Why Brett made it to where he did - it's a 0:16:17.840 --> 0:16:22.170 pretty indicative template - and that is you have to go 0:16:22.170 --> 0:16:25.550 outside of this place. So he spent 10 years abroad, 0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:30.550 as did Jeffrey Smart, as did John Olsen. You've got 0:16:30.550 --> 0:16:34.230 to go to where people are growing up and have 0:16:34.230 --> 0:16:38.080 a much more adult appreciation of your artistic efforts, and 0:16:38.080 --> 0:16:40.620 that's still the same today. And so that's the advice 0:16:40.620 --> 0:16:42.660 I say to all of the young people that are 0:16:42.660 --> 0:16:45.200 aspiring to pursue art. It's just like just save your 0:16:45.200 --> 0:16:46.770 bucks and get out of here as soon as you 0:16:46.770 --> 0:16:49.510 can go and get the show on your CV in 0:16:49.510 --> 0:16:54.850 whatever international art precinct [overseas] and come back here and they'll 0:16:54.850 --> 0:16:56.470 look at you a little bit more seriously. 0:16:57.240 --> 0:17:00.830 Making it in the arts - internationally - has long been associated 0:17:00.830 --> 0:17:03.820 with cities like London and New York, two places Brett 0:17:03.820 --> 0:17:06.560 was lucky enough to have lived as a young artist 0:17:06.800 --> 0:17:10.220 and Blak Douglas is right, this would have had a big impact 0:17:10.220 --> 0:17:13.830 on him coming home and so easily asserting himself here 0:17:13.840 --> 0:17:17.369 in the Australian art world. But things have changed, so 0:17:17.369 --> 0:17:18.660 would it be the same today? 0:17:19.040 --> 0:17:22.620 But what is Australian identity to you today? Like what 0:17:22.619 --> 0:17:25.210 is Australian identity to you today, but in in particular 0:17:25.210 --> 0:17:28.760 how it's represented through identity in Australian art? 0:17:29.240 --> 0:17:36.780 Australian identity today in art is as trepidatious as it was 0:17:36.790 --> 0:17:41.920 when I began painting, and pretty much hasn't changed. And 0:17:41.930 --> 0:17:45.860 in the sense that for the most part of most institutions, 0:17:45.960 --> 0:17:50.460 major institutions, you'll still hear a foreigner ask, 'Why isn't 0:17:50.460 --> 0:17:54.520 the First Nations artwork immediately in the foyer when you 0:17:54.520 --> 0:18:00.800 walk into the institution?' And so sadly, I'd like to 0:18:00.800 --> 0:18:04.609 see that change, and that's what I'm advocating for. However, 0:18:04.619 --> 0:18:08.470 I know that I'm walking on a fine line whilst 0:18:08.470 --> 0:18:11.970 trying to negate the Archibald and the other prizes as well, 0:18:11.980 --> 0:18:16.020 without rustling their feathers too much or soiling the soiling 0:18:16.020 --> 0:18:20.950 the collectible rug on the floor of the dining room. 0:18:23.140 --> 0:18:27.970 The acclaimed artist Vincent Namatjira recently became the first Indigenous 0:18:27.970 --> 0:18:31.159 Australian to win the Archibald Prize for his portrait of 0:18:31.160 --> 0:18:35.090 football icon Adam Goodes. It was a big moment - one 0:18:35.090 --> 0:18:44.050 that took 99 years. There are many takes on the 0:18:44.050 --> 0:18:46.609 Australian landscape. We've heard about a few of them in 0:18:46.609 --> 0:18:49.770 this episode, but Brett's take on Sydney makes a very 0:18:49.770 --> 0:18:53.550 particular impression, and it's undeniable - it's that blue that is 0:18:53.550 --> 0:18:54.470 at the heart of this. 0:18:54.480 --> 0:18:57.990 For me, I want to describe it in terms of 0:18:58.000 --> 0:18:59.240 colour and mark, really. 0:19:00.240 --> 0:19:03.110 This is Nicole Kelly, a painter. She won the coveted 0:19:03.109 --> 0:19:06.770 Brett Whiteley Travelling Art Scholarship when she was just 22. 0:19:07.140 --> 0:19:09.919 Of all of the artists we're speaking to in this episode, 0:19:09.920 --> 0:19:12.900 Nicole is the most traditional in terms of what we 0:19:12.900 --> 0:19:16.560 refer to as a landscape painter. So what does she 0:19:16.560 --> 0:19:18.669 think of Brett's harbour paintings? 0:19:19.140 --> 0:19:27.570 So this absolutely incredible blue, ultramarine, Prussian-y blue that floods 0:19:27.580 --> 0:19:31.560 the canvas, and I'm also drawn to this work for the 0:19:32.140 --> 0:19:36.280 really gestural white border where you can see the hand 0:19:36.290 --> 0:19:40.000 of lightly. I'm really interested in that because that's that 0:19:40.010 --> 0:19:43.570 embedding into space that I'm interested in my figures as well. 0:19:43.570 --> 0:19:44.159 So like then the white of the boats tie into that border, and they're kind of interlocked in the image. 0:19:50.240 --> 0:19:53.270 The way you see it is pretty different to how I, 0:19:53.280 --> 0:19:56.060 a mere mortal, might see it. So keep telling me 0:19:56.060 --> 0:19:59.320 about what you see; I'm seeing obvious stuff, probably. 0:20:00.540 --> 0:20:02.800 Again, like I love this. I mean, I don't even care what 0:20:02.800 --> 0:20:04.869 it is, but I think it might be a balcony, 0:20:04.880 --> 0:20:08.540 but my brain doesn't care, but I love the line work 0:20:08.550 --> 0:20:12.970 that is kind of almost superimposed over these other marks 0:20:12.970 --> 0:20:18.609 with rich kind of texture, textural painting and what that does 0:20:18.619 --> 0:20:22.930 to space, how those marks and colour and materiality of 0:20:22.930 --> 0:20:27.760 paint work to make such a strong image. I don't know. That's, that's my love. 0:20:29.580 --> 0:20:31.260 How does that make you feel? 0:20:39.340 --> 0:20:46.860 Good painting floods me with emotion that's hard to pinpoint, really like. It's somewhere between love and pain. Really. I can't describe why, but maybe 0:20:46.859 --> 0:20:50.960 it's a longing to make really good paintings. 0:20:51.640 --> 0:20:56.159 Nicole's own landscape paintings are lush and textural landscapes, thick 0:20:56.160 --> 0:20:59.940 with colour and emotion, providing a false sense of security 0:20:59.940 --> 0:21:13.470 to draw viewers in and then subtly redirect them. It's this distorted expression of the landscape that exposes trauma and probes the flaws in our relationship to the environment and history. So 0:21:13.470 --> 0:21:16.440 you said that you're grounded in landscape. That's that's we see. 0:21:16.440 --> 0:21:18.450 Why do you paint yourself into the landscape? 0:21:18.840 --> 0:21:24.119 I feel like we have made such a significant impact, like 0:21:24.119 --> 0:21:28.150 humans and especially white humans have made such a kind 0:21:28.150 --> 0:21:35.480 of impact on this landscape. It's hard to look at 0:21:35.480 --> 0:21:38.580 the landscape and not kind of think about our impact 0:21:38.580 --> 0:21:42.460 or think about our relationship to it. I feel a 0:21:42.460 --> 0:21:45.899 really strong connection with landscapes, so I see my identity 0:21:45.900 --> 0:21:47.980 in a way as part of that landscape as well. 0:21:48.940 --> 0:21:51.050 I guess I'm trying to make sense of all of 0:21:51.050 --> 0:21:56.560 these different aspects of human relationship to nature through my work. 0:21:57.440 --> 0:22:02.350 What makes a painting iconic? Does it come down to 0:22:02.350 --> 0:22:05.169 a feeling? Is it as simple as saying, 'This is a 0:22:05.170 --> 0:22:08.540 good piece of art and everybody else thinks so, too?' Or 0:22:08.540 --> 0:22:11.820 is there more to it? Do artworks become iconic because 0:22:11.820 --> 0:22:15.860 of an artist's place in society, the advantages that they may have? 0:22:16.240 --> 0:22:18.490 Well, Brett was fortunate to live in a place that 0:22:18.490 --> 0:22:21.010 allowed him views of the harbour that many people in 0:22:21.010 --> 0:22:23.379 Sydney would rarely have had the chance to see in 0:22:23.380 --> 0:22:26.629 their daily life. It gave him the opportunity to capture 0:22:26.640 --> 0:22:30.930 a privileged view, and a landscape painting of somewhere like 0:22:30.930 --> 0:22:34.960 Sydney Harbour can have such different meanings depending on who was 0:22:34.960 --> 0:22:38.450 looking at it. It can simply be a beautiful image 0:22:38.460 --> 0:22:41.250 of a well known place, but it can also be an 0:22:41.250 --> 0:22:44.860 image that projects classism, privilege, ownership. 0:22:46.340 --> 0:22:49.530 So can an artwork from the past remain as iconic 0:22:49.530 --> 0:22:53.409 in the present and the future? Will the iconic paintings 0:22:53.410 --> 0:22:58.100 of this time show images of fire-ravaged bush lands, demolished 0:22:58.109 --> 0:23:07.020 forests or empty cities? Only time will tell. Thank you 0:23:07.020 --> 0:23:10.860 to this episode's guests: Nicole Kelly, Wendy Whiteley, Anne Ryan, 0:23:10.869 --> 0:23:12.770 Blak Douglas and Abdul Abdullah. 0:23:13.240 --> 0:23:15.330 This podcast has been brought to you by the Brett 0:23:15.340 --> 0:23:18.500 Whiteley Studio in collaboration with the Art Gallery of New 0:23:18.500 --> 0:23:21.969 South Wales. To visit Brett Whiteley's studio, you can check it 0:23:21.970 --> 0:23:26.290 out from Thursday to Sunday. Admission is free. I'm Fenella Kernebon, 0:23:26.920 --> 0:23:28.040 thanks for joining us.