Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Uh-oh, I’m in trouble. In my last video, I went and upset the Australian arts community and their precious competition, the $100,000 Archibald Prize, by suggesting that the competition may be rigged towards minorities and women. Well, I don’t think I ever actually used the word “rigged.” I believe my exact words were: “if you just tamper with the rules and the judging panel long enough, you truly can achieve anything.” To be fair, I said “if”—“if you tamper with the rules.” I’m not claiming they actually did. I’m just observing that if one were inclined to manufacture a specific social outcome, there are plenty of ways to nudge the scales without officially “rigging” a single thing. But I’ll get to that later.
But first, I’ll address the critics’ concerns in turn. The first grievance was that I supposedly failed to mention that there are still Caucasian winners—despite the fact that I explicitly noted this year’s winner is a New Zealand-born artist. They claim I focused my critique entirely on minorities and women. Okay, then. In the name of transparency, let’s look at 2024’s winner, Laura Jones, and her portrait of author Tim Winton. Is she some kind of radical traditionalist? Hardly. She carries all the “correct” modern opinions. On the official Archibald website, they quoted her as saying: “Tim said the lack of action on climate change hasn’t been challenged enough in the arts… When I flew to Perth for a sitting, the Great Barrier Reef was suffering its fifth mass bleaching event in eight years.” Enough said… first prize!
So, they’re accusing me of intentional bias for not focusing on the Caucasian winners, while on their own website, they focus almost exclusively on gender and race. I didn’t spend my time tallying the Caucasian males—but then again, neither did they!
Secondly, I’ve been told there is no political bias—that they are simply judging “good art” as it comes in. Okay, let’s test that theory. Let’s look at this year’s winning portrait of Aboriginal Elder and healer Iluwanti Ken, where artist Richard Lewer spent “a week on Country” to capture her presence. Now, for the sake of argument, imagine the artist had instead painted a prominent neo-N*** figure in a full World War II German uniform. Imagine the artist spent a week with this neo-N*** to really “capture his essence.”
Everything else remains the same; the artist is the same, the quality of the brush strokes is identical, and the technical execution is just as masterful. Do you think for a single second he would have been crowned this year’s winner? Not a chance. He wouldn’t have even made it past the front door of the gallery. So, how can anyone honestly say there’s no political bias in the judging of this award? If the technical skill is equal, but the $100,000 cheque only appears when the subject fits the “correct” social narrative, then it’s not an art competition—it’s an HR exercise with a paintbrush.
If you look at the Gallery’s website, the bias is completely evident. On every page, they acknowledge the “traditional custodians” of the land and state that they are on “Gadigal Country.” And if you think all of this is just performative, think again. On their Archibald Prize page, you can, of course, buy tickets, with Aboriginal people receiving tickets for one-third the price of everyone else. Yes, the Gallery is firmly against discrimination in all its forms… except, apparently, when it comes to the ticket booth.
Interestingly, another Australian artist won a $100,000 art competition recently, which was basically ignored by every major news outlet, with the exception of the AFR. Artist Peter Godwin painted the Li River in China and won the inaugural $100,000 Australia China Art Residency Art Prize.
He’s obviously a talented artist, and he just won an amount identical to the Archibald, but there wasn’t a peep out of the ABC or the usual suspects. I don’t know why. Perhaps it’s because a landscape of a river in China doesn’t offer quite enough “diversity points” to make the evening news?
And just one last point: the Archibald judges. As they note on their website: “Each year, the trustees of the Art Gallery of New South Wales judge the Archibald Prize.” Here are the esteemed trustees. I’m not going to go through all eleven of them, but I’ll give you a brief sample.
Member Will Cook is here until 2028. In his official bio, they note: “As a champion of inclusive representation, he aims to amplify diverse voices.” Member Caroline Rothwell is an artist “living on Gadigal Country.” Need I say more?
In closing, fine, I admit—the competition isn’t actively “rigged.” It’s just that the judges have a very clear, very public, and very expensive preference for specific social outcomes. Either way, that’s not bias, right? … Right!? It’s hard not to wonder: is it still about the best portrait? Or has the Archibald Prize gone from being a preeminent art show to a virtue-signalling sideshow?
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
Uh-oh, I’m in trouble. In my last video, I went and upset the Australian arts community and their precious competition, the $100,000 Archibald Prize, by suggesting that the competition may be rigged towards minorities and women. Well, I don’t think I ever actually used the word “rigged.” I believe my exact words were: “if you just tamper with the rules and the judging panel long enough, you truly can achieve anything.” To be fair, I said “if”—“if you tamper with the rules.” I’m not claiming they actually did. I’m just observing that if one were inclined to manufacture a specific social outcome, there are plenty of ways to nudge the scales without officially “rigging” a single thing. But I’ll get to that later.
But first, I’ll address the critics’ concerns in turn. The first grievance was that I supposedly failed to mention that there are still Caucasian winners—despite the fact that I explicitly noted this year’s winner is a New Zealand-born artist. They claim I focused my critique entirely on minorities and women. Okay, then. In the name of transparency, let’s look at 2024’s winner, Laura Jones, and her portrait of author Tim Winton. Is she some kind of radical traditionalist? Hardly. She carries all the “correct” modern opinions. On the official Archibald website, they quoted her as saying: “Tim said the lack of action on climate change hasn’t been challenged enough in the arts… When I flew to Perth for a sitting, the Great Barrier Reef was suffering its fifth mass bleaching event in eight years.” Enough said… first prize!
So, they’re accusing me of intentional bias for not focusing on the Caucasian winners, while on their own website, they focus almost exclusively on gender and race. I didn’t spend my time tallying the Caucasian males—but then again, neither did they!
Secondly, I’ve been told there is no political bias—that they are simply judging “good art” as it comes in. Okay, let’s test that theory. Let’s look at this year’s winning portrait of Aboriginal Elder and healer Iluwanti Ken, where artist Richard Lewer spent “a week on Country” to capture her presence. Now, for the sake of argument, imagine the artist had instead painted a prominent neo-N*** figure in a full World War II German uniform. Imagine the artist spent a week with this neo-N*** to really “capture his essence.”
Everything else remains the same; the artist is the same, the quality of the brush strokes is identical, and the technical execution is just as masterful. Do you think for a single second he would have been crowned this year’s winner? Not a chance. He wouldn’t have even made it past the front door of the gallery. So, how can anyone honestly say there’s no political bias in the judging of this award? If the technical skill is equal, but the $100,000 cheque only appears when the subject fits the “correct” social narrative, then it’s not an art competition—it’s an HR exercise with a paintbrush.
If you look at the Gallery’s website, the bias is completely evident. On every page, they acknowledge the “traditional custodians” of the land and state that they are on “Gadigal Country.” And if you think all of this is just performative, think again. On their Archibald Prize page, you can, of course, buy tickets, with Aboriginal people receiving tickets for one-third the price of everyone else. Yes, the Gallery is firmly against discrimination in all its forms… except, apparently, when it comes to the ticket booth.
Interestingly, another Australian artist won a $100,000 art competition recently, which was basically ignored by every major news outlet, with the exception of the AFR. Artist Peter Godwin painted the Li River in China and won the inaugural $100,000 Australia China Art Residency Art Prize.
He’s obviously a talented artist, and he just won an amount identical to the Archibald, but there wasn’t a peep out of the ABC or the usual suspects. I don’t know why. Perhaps it’s because a landscape of a river in China doesn’t offer quite enough “diversity points” to make the evening news?
And just one last point: the Archibald judges. As they note on their website: “Each year, the trustees of the Art Gallery of New South Wales judge the Archibald Prize.” Here are the esteemed trustees. I’m not going to go through all eleven of them, but I’ll give you a brief sample.
Member Will Cook is here until 2028. In his official bio, they note: “As a champion of inclusive representation, he aims to amplify diverse voices.” Member Caroline Rothwell is an artist “living on Gadigal Country.” Need I say more?
In closing, fine, I admit—the competition isn’t actively “rigged.” It’s just that the judges have a very clear, very public, and very expensive preference for specific social outcomes. Either way, that’s not bias, right? … Right!? It’s hard not to wonder: is it still about the best portrait? Or has the Archibald Prize gone from being a preeminent art show to a virtue-signalling sideshow?
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
