Where Would We Be Without Scandalous Death?

Vincent Fantauzzo’s portrait of late superstar-friend Heath Ledger didn’t earn him the 2008 Archibald prize, but a popular vote awarded the portrait the “people’s choice” award according to the 32,000 voters at the Art Gallery of New South Wales.

This popular voting of pop-culture art is unsettling on many levels.  The popular fascination with scandalous death never dwindles, and the skepticism surrounding Ledger’s “accidental” overdose continues to fuel gossip and rumor.  But when does the subject of art become more important than the brush strokes themselves?

Fantauzzo’s piece is not a great work.  It is a human study in anatomy and personality, with philosophical musings illustrated by the “whispering” of the shoulder-Heath’s on either side of the main subject’s head.  The work is done accurately and well, but it is no master work.  It was chosen as a prize winner because of the subject, and only because of the subject.

It leaves me wondering what the true purpose of art is.  Does Fantauzzo feel robbed for his talent being wasted by the spotlight of his subject?  Where does art end and marketing begin?  What, readers, is the point of all this?

Does all art simply boil down to the fascination with scandalous death?