APYACC Response The Australian

9th April 2023

Response to allegations in The Australian

Our priority is the safety, health and well-being of the people mentioned and affected by the stories in The Australian. We strenuously deny the over-arching narrative that APY ACC art and any artists are compromised. To the contrary. We believe our professional studios meet highest standards of integrity and professionalism.

The Australian’s claims to have conducted a thorough four month investigation and spoken with leading experts are disingenuous. The photos and videos reported on were never put to APY ACC. A still image of Ms Palmer holding a dry paint brush was shown to her just over a week ago and Ms Palmer correctly denied painting in the photo shown to her. At the same time, APY ACC wrote to The Australian to describe what was happening in the video (which we saw for the first time today), as follows: 

 APYACC has previously detailed the roles performed by professional art assistants,

including performing “underpainting”. The photo in question shows the application

of a background wash, which in Yaritji Young’s case is the last stage of this

underpainting process. It is in no way interfering the artist’s Tjukurpa or out of the

ordinary for an art assistant to take part in this process, including slopping or

spraying the wash on the canvas at this stage, at the artist’s direction, indigenous

or otherwise.

In terms of the background wash, heavily diluted paint is poured, sprayed or slopped

onto the canvas, including with large ‘house-painting’ brushes. Professional

assistants may or may not take part in this process to some degree, at the artist’s

direction. Multiple layers are then applied only by the artist following the

underpainting stage. Yaritji Young’s work is so successful because of the complex

layering involved.

APY ACC had previously written to The Australian on multiple occasions to seek to engage with them on the role art assistants play in all contemporary, professional art studios producing world-class art, indigenous or otherwise. APY ACC does not hide the fact that art assistants assist in the underpainting process. The video taken was in the open air, in the presence of guests, at a time when Tjala Arts knew it was being investigated by The Australian. Guests are free to enter APY ACC’s Adelaide studio and will see paint-splattered assistants working at artists’ direction. The former staff member of the studio who alleges that ‘someone would sing out “hands off” whenever a guest unexpectedly arrived’ was in fact moved on by APY ACC because she herself did not keep her hands off art work. 

True industry experts understand the line between assistance at artists’ direction and interference with the artistic process and know that APY ACC has never crossed this line. It is grossly offensive to the many hundreds of proud Anangu who work with APY ACC to suggest otherwise, or that they would tolerate their Tjukurpa being interfered with. 

The Australian claims it wants to open a debate on the role of art assistants in contemporary indigenous art, but their reporting reveals that they have already taken a side on this debate without properly educating themselves on industry-wide professional practices. This is because their reporting from the outset was infected by a paternalistic view of how indigenous art should be made, devoid of contemporary, professional practices which are not hidden from anyone wishing to observe them.

 There are also allegations that non-Indigenous assistants have completed unfinished artworks. Those allegations are false and seriously defamatory. APY ACC is taking legal advice.