Despard Gallery congratulates Rodney Pople as the winner of the John Glover 2012 prize.
Sydney based artist Pople has been a regular visitor to Tasmania over many years>> Born in Launceston, Pople studied at the Tasmanian School of Art.
The artist has not shied away from controversy in his work, in 2009 dozens of protesters picketed his Sydney Gallery over the use of pornographic imagery set among Church alter pieces in Venice, interestingly the same paintings exhibited at Despard Gallery only drew one written protest stuffed under the door….
Pople’s prize winning entry “Port Arthur”
Port Arthur depicts a figure with blond hair standing on the road holding a rifle, the reference to Martin Bryant gives the painting a truly haunting presence and will no doubt raise the controversy about censorship in art – historically artists have depicted violence in war, sexual exploitation and mans vulnerability as seen from their perspective, Rodney in his practice consistently uses historical references in contemporary paintings.
Pople’s inclusion of Bryant set among one of the bloodiest and most violent prisons of our colonial past is a grim reminder of a terrible event in Tasmania’s history.
Despard Gallery have a solo show scheduled for October this year, please see the link for works currently available by Rodney Pople.
http://www.despard-gallery.com.au/popleglover/1.html
• Mercury: Prize artist defiant on Bryant
CONTROVERSIAL Glover Prize winning artist Rodney Pople says donating his cash prize to the Alannah and Madeline Foundation is a “ridiculous” idea.
Speaking yesterday about the backlash to his painting of a Port Arthur landscape featuring Australia’s worst mass murderer Martin Bryant, Pople said the more Bryant was “swept under the carpet, the worse it is”.
“What he did was a dreadful thing,” he said. “But my role as an artist isn’t to shy away from that reality.”
After the announcement that Pople had won the prestigious $35,000 landscape painting prize, the Mercury and Sunday Tasmanian’s website was bombarded with heated comments from readers.
While some praised the painting for “the truth it explores”, and others attacked the artist’s technical abilities, the vast majority of readers said they were angered by the piece, calling it atrocious, vile, insensitive, revolting and “a bloody disgrace”.
One reader said it was “disrespectful to all victims and their families”.
