A Society at Sea

This week I had the privilege of going to a pre-viewing of the Archibald finalists. I was so excited. It had been a tough day listening to testimonies from the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion and also listening to bigots in court try justify why “globalising the intifada” and supporting Hamas’ charter were not racist, so when offered the opportunity at the last minute to help out a friend while experiencing a pre-viewing of the prestigious Archibald with the curator, I was feeling hopeful for a reset and safe space to end the day.

As the curator took us through the gallery she picked certain works to talk about and it was very interesting understanding the stories behind the artwork. In her introduction the curator mentioned that the finalist collection this year included a number of activists which I thought was an interesting point of hers to make. I see myself as an activist of sorts so I thought I was in for an uplifting evening. Also this year I was particularly looking forward to seeing the portrait of Alex Ryvchin by Michael Zavros, especially since Johannes Leak’s portrait of Alex was for many surprisingly not picked as a finalist in 2025.

One of the first portraits that the curator introduced us to I really loved. It was a painting by Sarah Satha of restaurant owner and charity founder Shaun Christie-David who provides employment to asylum seekers and provides meals to those in need. I loved the backstory and I loved the portrait. Then when the curator spoke about an abstract work being about the need for more generosity of spirit in our society, a lady I didn’t know whispered to me “that is so true, we really need that in these times”. I whispered back that I agreed with her and that I knew that was needed from personal experience. So far I was having fun.

As we continued to walk through the gallery on our guided tour, I was obviously keeping an eye out for the portrait of Alex. This turned out to be a good idea because it’s very likely that I would have missed it otherwise. As we entered each section of the gallery I immediately scanned all the walls for the portrait, of which I had already seen a photo so I knew what to look out for. As we entered section 2 or 3 (I can’t remember which one it was), the curator started speaking about a portrait in the centre of the section and while she spoke I scanned the other walls. I then saw the portrait of Alex on the wall to the left of the entrance when entering that section with a large deep void space next to it between the portrait and the start of the paintings on the perpendicular wall. The painter uses very light colours, mainly white, pale blue and greys and thus blends into the white wall background making the spot chosen to display it in its best light, so to speak, really important. This was not it! A very small portrait was placed next to Alex which seemed really out of place (perhaps there was significance to it but I didn’t get a chance to look at that work). I went up to Alex’s portrait, took a photo and read the artist’s explanation of his work. A couple of people must have noticed that my friend and I had broken away from the rest of the group and came to have a look too. After discussing some paintings in that section, the curator walked past Michael’s artwork and flippantly said something like “Oh and that’s Alex Ryvchin” and moved into the next section. In my opinion she only mentioned it at all because my friend and I spent a lot of time looking at it and taking photos which drew a couple of others to show some interest (or perhaps she saw our Magen Davids?) and I think it would have been awkward for her if she ignored it completely. My enthusiasm for the exhibition was a little dampened but I didn’t yet appreciate how it would soon be crushed.

1. In the last section was the largest most prominent portrait of all, a massive impressive portrait of Daniel Johns which the curator had mentioned in her introduction. The curator spoke about the portraits on either side of the piece. The work on the right of it she explained needed to be placed in just the right spot to be viewed at its best (not her exact words) and it was decided that it should go next to this centre piece. She then went on to talk in detail about the painting on the left of the centre piece, a portrait by Desiree Crossing of Dr Mohammed Mustafa (Dr Mo) called “An ordinary man”. To those not in-tune to how the narrative today in Australia is shaped, this may seem like a perfectly reasonable way for someone to describe themselves or to describe someone else. However Dr Mo knows he is not an ordinary man, and the painter knows that he is not an ordinary man. He, and I assume the painter, knows that he is shaping a narrative in Australia. To be considered an “ordinary man” in Australia you need to prioritise Palestinian suffering in Gaza over all other suffering. To be a “humanitarian” you have to continually talk about the “children of Gaza” as if they are the only children who experience tragedy and need critical medical care. To be an “ordinary man” in Australia you need to be an antizionist, who like Dr Mo supports the eradication of Israel, uses libels and language that demonises Israel and participates in marches in the streets of Perth, Sydney or Melbourne where slogans and death chants against Jews are normalised and where participants don symbols of extremists and terrorists. To be an “ordinary” Australian you have to associate yourself with antisemites like Jeremy Corbyn. The juxtaposition of this painting in terms of artist narrative, text narrative and text tone, and the artwork’s positioning in the gallery was so stark to me. The painting of a proud physically large man with a symbol of his tradition together with the iconic symbol of Australia, our water (“our home is girt by sea”), which to me was also a reference to Bondi Beach, is hidden in a corner. The painting of a supposedly “ordinary” physically large man slumped in a chair as if defeated, perhaps even a victim (to me the image did not portray the idea of humility at all as the painter said she intended), is placed next to the most prominently sized painting in the gallery. For me this tells the story of Australia today. Jews are not “ordinary”, “ordinary” Australians protest against Jews. “Ordinary” Australians get the spotlight and get their voices and presence amplified, Jews (Zionist Jews as they like to differentiate) are not “ordinary”. As Michael Zavros wrote “…symbols are so important in contemporary culture. All too often, when marking identity, they are used to harm people.”

In that same gallery next to Dr Mo was a portrait of Jan Fran by Vicki Sullivan called “Peace actually” with Jan showing a peace sign and a gold halo motif above her head, which is a recognised symbol signifying divinity and holiness. The text describing the work explains Jan’s business relationship with Antoinette Lattouf and claims that their media business tells the ‘real story’ at a time when misinformation is rife. This was so cynical to me since Antoinette Lattouf, I didn’t know anything about Jan Fran at the time, is a propagator of libels, misinformation, denials and stigmatisation of Jews. She has without a doubt had an influence on the rise of anti-Jew rhetoric and sentiment in Australia. The curator thankfully didn’t talk about this painting as I think I would have been physically sick. When I returned home that evening and asked Google “Jan Fran views on Zionists” this is what I got “Based on her recent commentary and media work, Jan Fran has expressed strong criticism of Zionism and the influence of pro-Israel lobby groups, particularly in the context of the Israel-Gaza conflict.” It then went on to say that she opposes Zionism which she describes as “settler-colonial political doctrine” – this is a libel against Jews. She also “highlighted what she calls the undue influence of the “pro-Israel lobby” on mainstream media and Western politics, arguing that this lobby works to distort elections and government actions” – this is antisemitism in its most classic form and defined as such by the IHRA definition of antisemitism which is accepted by Australia and the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and

2.Social Cohesion. She then goes on to spread more libels about Jews when she criticises mainstream media for “promoting what she describes as Zionist narratives, dehumanizing Palestinians, and failing to properly report on Israel’s actions” – this is denial and inversion, again classic tactics used against Jews both in the context of antisemitism or antizionism. To present Jan as an icon of peace and purity is intellectually perverted. Jan Fran, and her business partner, are bigoted against Jews (who are overwhelming Zionists) and their rhetoric stigmatises Jews leading to Alex being in the corner.

Moving on, the curator then picked a striking portrait of Adam Hyde, the boyfriend of Abbie Chatfield who very proudly and bluntly stated on her social media that “I have said I am biased. I acknowledge that. I will not platform a Zionist. I will platform Jewish voices as requested”. Each person is an individual and responsible for their own words and actions so Abbie’s words are not Adam’s words however both Adam and the artist Sindy Sinn chose to emphasise Adam’s relationship to a self confessed bigot. This is how bigotry against Jews is normalised in Australia.

The last painting the curator spoke about in that section of the gallery was the portrait of Ahmed Al Ahmed by Julia Dover. Of course a great brave deed was done by Ahmed which we are so grateful for but the choice of where the gallery chose to include his portrait is so telling. Firstly, he was placed in a prominent position in the gallery, no objection to that in isolation, however given the context of where Alex’s portrait was placed sends a clear message to visitors to the gallery of who should be noticed and who should be in the shadows. Secondly, it is placed together with some subjects who either themselves or those they associate with contribute to the environment of antisemitism and antizionism in Australia, the exact opposite of what Ahmed represents. It seems illogical to me, but then nothing that Jews are experiencing in Australia today is logical. The message was clear to me – in this section were the “ordinary” Australians, the “in crowd”, the ones standing for “humanity and peace”, the ones to be revered. And where was Alex, a leader of an Australian community under attack, pleading for their safety and civil rights at the Royal Commission after surviving the worst terror attack in this country…almost alone on a wall most people will overlook.

The Archibald 2026 experience for me was a perfect example of how Jews are othered, marginalised, hidden and erased from Australia’s story, even when it’s their own story. And it’s now normalised as “ordinary”.

Laura Taitz is part of Sydney’s Jewish community.