This (click here) is this years winner of the Australian National Portrait prize. I ask you to have a look at the rest of the gallery, and someone please explain why that photo is the rightful winner over shots like David Sandlson’s shot of Len Green or John Cann and his father by Hugh Stewart? I will take part of a rant I put on one internet forum and plonk it in here to give you some idea of how I am thinking.

With regards to your opening sentence N, me being the proud little philistine that I am, I have to ask. Do you wonder why people the likes of my good self think that the art fraternity are a bunch of pretentious #$@&! when photos like the one I linked to above, win a prize worth $25,000, when the good majority of people think it is a steaming pile of #*!%? There are so many other entries in the comp that are so much better, and not just in my eyes, in every single person I have asked today. Whilst ever the chardy sipping tools are saying that is the best photo and the rest of us don’t understand why, art will never make inroads imho.

Really, I don’t understand it. Can some explain? I always thought portraits where supposed to engage the subject. Make a connection. Maybe it is why I cant take a portrait to save myself! To me, that photo is no more than a family snap shot. No offence meant to the photographer, I hope he enjoys the $25k.