Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart, has been making headlines recently for her attempts to have two portraits of her by Indigenous artist Vincent Namatjira removed from the National Gallery Australia. Rinehart found the portrayal in Namatjira’s work offensive, leading her to approach NGA director Nick Mitzevich and NGA chair Ryan Stokes in April to demand that the portrait be taken down from the gallery’s first major survey of Namatjira’s work. The exhibition, titled Vincent Namatjira: Australia in Colour, features 21 images painted by the Western Aranda artist, including portraits of notable Australian figures like Ned Kelly, Lionel Rose, and Namatjira’s friend Adam Goodes.
Since the exhibition opened on March 2, more than a dozen complaints have been received by the gallery from associates of Rinehart’s company, Hancock Prospecting, accusing the NGA of displaying her image in an unflattering way. One of Hancock Prospecting’s sponsorships has been to Australian swimmers, leading Swimming Queensland chief Kevin Hasemann to write to Mitzevich asserting that Rinehart, through her philanthropy, has proven herself to be a “great Australian” and urging the gallery to comply with her demands. Rio Olympic gold medallist Kyle Chalmers was among the swimmers who joined the campaign against the portraits.
The NGV describes Namatjira’s exhibition as one that takes a “wry look at the politics of history, power, and leadership from a contemporary Aboriginal perspective”. This description proves to be quite fitting given Rinehart’s attempts to have her portraits removed based on offense. Namatjira, the artist, was difficult to contact during the reporting of this story as he lives remotely and simply. Rinehart herself has amassed a fortune of about $37.6 billion, largely through the selling of resources owned by all Australians via a company established by her father, Lang Hancock, who infamously once declared in a television interview that water sources should be poisoned to “sterilise” Aboriginal people.
The story of Rinehart’s attempts to have the portraits removed from the National Gallery Australia is a prime example of the use of power, privilege, and patronage, as well as its limits. By leveraging her wealth and influence, Rinehart was able to pressure the gallery to take action against artwork that she found offensive. However, the backlash from the public, including the swimmers who led a campaign against the portraits, highlights the importance of artistic freedom and the ability of artists to express themselves without fear of censorship. Additionally, the controversy sheds light on the complicated relationship between power dynamics, Indigenous representation, and the politics of history and leadership.
Rinehart’s actions also raise questions about the responsibilities of philanthropic individuals and companies when it comes to supporting the arts and promoting diversity and inclusion. While Rinehart may have used her wealth to sponsor Australian swimmers and support various causes, her attempts to silence an Indigenous artist’s work suggest a lack of respect for Indigenous perspectives and narratives. The controversy surrounding the removal of the portraits serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by Indigenous artists and the importance of protecting their voices and representations in the cultural landscape.
Ultimately, the debate over the portraits of Gina Rinehart by Vincent Namatjira at the National Gallery Australia underscores the complexities of navigating issues of power, privilege, and representation in the art world. While Rinehart may have been able to exert her influence to try to remove the portraits, the public response and artistic community’s support for Namatjira demonstrate the enduring importance of artistic freedom and Indigenous voices. As the story continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for equality, recognition, and cultural respect for Indigenous artists and their contributions to Australian society.
