As it happens, I'm currently in Canberra playing a couple of blues gigs (Old Canberra Inn from 9 tonight, for those so inclined), and I took some time this morning to visit the new National Portrait Gallery.
First of all, some observations about the gallery: Wow! I love this place. A nice gallery, with a wonderful collection. lots of great portraits on display, and some interesting contrasts.
First of all, my primary interest was in the photographic images on display. Let's accept that I'm biased in this way.
Amongst the recent acquisitions are five - count 'em: five - Max Dupains. All together, in a row. There were some other Dupains in other sections of the gallery. All great images, truly. And they all displayed not simply the mastery of photography that we expect from Max's work, but each of them seemed to me to display a softness that I'd never noticed in his work before. Not a softness in terms of focus, perhaps a slight softness in terms of exposure and contrast settings, but definitely a softness in the manner within which the images are composed and made. Wonderful!
Three Bill Hensons, big, bold, and brilliant. No controversy over these images, though.
Other portraits there presented, as I mentioned above, some interesting contrasts, such as paintings by Martin Sharp, along with, elsewhere, a painting of Sharp. This happens with several artists, where we can see their work and a portrait of the artist as well. This is something that I think we rarely get to glimpse, and adds to the strength of what this gallery has to offer.
Many bronze heads, including Jack Brabham and Peter brock, next to one another.
Many of the images do challenge what we consider to be traditional portraiture, which brings me to the portraiture competition that I mentioned at the start of this post. There are some great images presented here. And I mean some truly great images.
The winning image, in its full size, and as presented, looks far more impressive, and far stronger, than it does as presented in the press, and/or on the internet. That said, it remains, for me, probably the weakest image in this selection, and it's still just crap.
The Peter Luck image is particularly masterful, combining his (new) photo with one taken by his subjects fifty years ago.
I have to confess that I know Kim Batterham, so please excuse the bias, but his image is well made and wonderfully presented: at the end of the room, sharing its wall with one other, somewhat similar, image. Striking in its presentation.
Another image that took my fancy is one of a girl, shot in front of a scene that to me is reminiscent of Patonga in the 1950s. That's actually a somewhat redundant statement: Patonga is perpetually stuck in the 50s.
The notes with the image describe it as having a Sunday feel, and yes, that is correct. It is a subdued, desaturated image, wth a wonderful feel behind it.There's another image of a man within his work environment, surrounded by books and manuscripts. The lighting in this image is wonderful, and the exposure just perfect.
There's an image which was displayed on the News Limited site of a young male, sort of displaying some frailty. The image, as displayed on the web did not impress me at all. Like the prize winning entry, this image, in person, looks very different. But whereas the winning entry fails to convey to me any aspects of it being a good portrait, this one is just beautiful.
This gallery is a wonderful addition to the various attractions that Canberra has to offer, and the hour or so that I spent there today has placed it very firmly in, for me, the top attractions that Canberra has to offer Australia.
