"Port Arthur"

[grannieannie]

What (if anything) do you think of the Tasmanian, 2012 Glover Art Prize paining titled "Port Arthur"
which shows a painting of Port Arthur and Martin Bryant in it, holding a rifle.

Do you think it's in bad taste, or don't you care....tell me what your feelings are....

As for my personal feelings, I think it's totally disgusting that anyone would paint anything with this monster in it. If I could I would literally attack the painting to destroy it and would happily go to goal for doing so.

I've visited Tasmania twice and never went to Port Arthur because not only because of the brutality historically, but also of the Bryant massacre, I just couldn't bring myself to go there. I know the people of the island need the tourist dollar to continue business, but I just couldn't go, the thought of being there was just too upsetting.

 

[Channaz]

I've only seen a small version of it, but it looks like a landscape to me, similar to a Sidney Nolan or an Arthur Boyd. The Martin Bryant figure appears almost secondary to the landscape, which I think is very truthful. I have always thought that southern Tasmania has a haunted, ethereal quality to its hills, coves and inlets. Although normally, I associate this with the horrific extermination of the people who once lived there, as opposed to the terrible events of 1996.

I can understand why many people would find the 1996 reference in the painting to be upsetting and insensitive. And yet, in a world that is so materialistic and full of itself, I think it's worth considering some of the other qualities that this painting may bring. There are many things I would quite happily attack in this world, but art (even art that is unsuccessful) will never be something I would seek to destroy.

 

[grannieannie]

I've only seen a small version of it, but it looks like a landscape to me, similar to a Sidney Nolan or an Arthur Boyd. The Martin Bryant figure appears almost secondary to the landscape, which I think is very truthful. I have always thought that southern Tasmania has a haunted, ethereal quality to its hills, coves and inlets. Although normally, I associate this with the horrific extermination of the people who once lived there, as opposed to the terrible events of 1996.

I can understand why many people would find the 1996 reference in the painting to be upsetting and insensitive. And yet, in a world that is so materialistic and full of itself, I think it's worth considering some of the other qualities that this painting may bring. There are many things I would quite happily attack in this world, but art (even art that is unsuccessful) will never be something I would seek to destroy.

I appreciate your interesting comments, and I love art myself, but for me this is just too close to home...and I know there have been portraits of dictators and criminals before, but even a tiny depiction of this monster is just totally abhorent to me....

 

[kawasakirider]

Haven't seen the painting, but the context in which it viewed is entirely up to the viewer. Art is a matter of opinion, I don't really see a drama with it.

The only piece of "art" that I have found disgraceful was an "artist" in France who tied a stray dog up in an art gallery and starved it to death. Filthy prick. I'd take great pleasure chaining him up and starving him.

I've been to Port Arthur a few times, didn't have a drama going there. It was a horrible tragedy that occurred there, but it has nothing to do with the actual bit of dirt you stand on when you get there and the ghost tour is pretty fun.

 

[maddog-1979]

it's a painting , and i would treat it the same as all other paintings by not giving a rats ****. artists dont contribute anything to society, exceptbuying the fancy wines, that keeps our winemakers in business, and kimberly clark for all the toilet paper needed to wipe their chins

 

[mad_at_arms]

As terrible an event as it was, it is part of the countries recent history.
Should we ignore or try to forget the past?

 

[junglepython2]

it's a painting , and i would treat it the same as all other paintings by not giving a rats ****. artists dont contribute anything to society, exceptbuying the fancy wines, that keeps our winemakers in business, and kimberly clark for all the toilet paper needed to wipe their chins

Hahahahaha, love your thinking!

 

[jahan]

He should be hung.
He`s wasting our air.

 

[Darlyn]

When I first read it I thought it was a gross idea, but after looking at the
painting it actually made sense to me. When I went to Port Arthur that was kinda how I
felt. You couldn't visit there without having the memory of what Bryant did lurking in your mind.
The painting actually puts that feeling on the canvas.

 

[Stompsy]

I went there on my year 9 camp. Our bus tour guide advised us not to speak about the massacre to anyone there as it had only been a year or so since it had happened. I agree with the previous poster, although there's so much history there and you are being told tales of years gone by, the thought of what happened in 1996 is still in your mind.

Having Bryant in the painting is depicting the exactly feelings you have whilst being there. There's no fear (for me anyway) just a way to remember that so many lost their lives that day, on top of all the others from the years when the prison was running.

I believe every story that Port Arthur has to tell is worth telling, even if it is a little hard to swallow and I believe that's all the artist was trying to portray.

 

[Renenet]

It does a country no good to repress its past, no matter how appalling. Even the Americans are exploring September 11 in art and film.

With the caveat that none of the photos I've seen of it are very good, I think the painting is amazing. I think I read this phrase about the painting last night: "A landscape full of ghosts", and that's exactly how I feel about Port Arthur as a site. (I'm not referring to the ghost tour either, although it is one of the best I've ever been on.)

The painting is not solely about Martin Bryant. He is there as the perpetrator of the most recent atrocity that took place at the site, but look back at Port Arthur's colonial history and you'll find stories of violence and suffering that stained the place forever, long before the 1996 tragedy. The history as a whole is what the painting evokes, very well. It reminds me so clearly of how I felt when I visited the place.

 

[Elapidae1]

Excellent painting.

What I find disgusting is the inclusion in the Guiness Book of World Records as being the largest single handed mass murder. It's just waiting for some sicko to get the idea of making it into the book.

 

[Stompsy]

There are quite a few books with regard to Martin Bryant's life and the massacre. Quite good reads infact.

 

[JackTar]

I'm fairly confident that when someone becomes a mass murderer the guiness book of records is one of the furthest things from their minds.

 

[kawasakirider]

I'm fairly confident that when someone becomes a mass murderer the guiness book of records is one of the furthest things from their minds.

Are you? Mass murderers and serial killers thrive on the notoriety they achieve.

 

[sarah_m]

Mass murderers and serial killers thrive on the notoriety they achieve.

This is the issue I have with the painting, that it immortalises him and what he did. It is giving him more attention, headlines etc, which he no doubt enjoys.

On it's own, as a piece of art it is lovely and haunting. I can see how it would be offensive to those that survived or lost loved ones in the massacre though.

 

[KaotikJezta]

it's a painting , and i would treat it the same as all other paintings by not giving a rats ****. artists dont contribute anything to society, exceptbuying the fancy wines, that keeps our winemakers in business, and kimberly clark for all the toilet paper needed to wipe their chins

Gee, maybe I should just gas myself now and do the world a favour. Mind you, I don't drink, and definitley wouldn't drink fancy wine if I did. Maybe you should be a little less judgmental, not all of us artists are pretentious chin wipers.

 

[Elapidae1]

I'm fairly confident that when someone becomes a mass murderer the guiness book of records is one of the furthest things from their minds.

I guess your right they'll much rather a painting of themselves.

I imagine being immortalised in a book or on canvas is a more valid reason than disliking Mondays

 

[shea_and_ruby]

art is personal and reflective. the artist in question obviously felt as if bryant was now part of the landscapre itself - he is not illuminated in anyway, but seems to blend in. art, like most things, is subjective. no matter what the artist's intended reception was, each person will bring to it their own opinion/prespective/ideals. to me that's what art and literature is about.

 

[discountreptile]

Like it or not martin bryant is a tourist attraction at port arthur, i was there last month and took a tour around the goal and yes the tour guide spoke about what he did in detail, about where he killed and how many in each location, so the picture depicts an acurate account of that location and its attractions.
Lets face it tasmanias past is full of horrific crimes, humanitary and environmental.
It is the only place in the world to commit a total genicide of a race.
They cut down thousand yr old trees and turn them into bark chip and then replant it with one species of tree then spray the area with 1080 poison so that the little plant eating animal die so that there trees can grow back but this has a flow on effect with also killing the carnivores that eat the dead animals, ie, devils, quolls, birds of prey.
But some people get upset when someone makes a painting.
and i didnt even mention the thylacene, oops just did.