EDITORIAL: Art is in the eye of the cash-holder | Manawatu-Wanganui News | Local News in Manawatu-Wanganui

It's easy to see why some artists have taken the success of Collateral as a slap in the face.

Collateral, which won the Waikato National Contemporary Art Award, consisted of the discarded wrappings of the other entries, tipped on the floor.

The artist, Berlin-based Aucklander Dane Mitchell, won $15,000, from a field of 283 entries and 43 finalists, without having touched or seen the artwork.

He didn't quite phone it in, as it were, he wrote a letter, asking museum staff to create the piece.

Arguments about 'what is art?' are doomed to go nowhere, but you can't deny the entry has created a storm of interest in what otherwise would have been a low-key competition.

Some artists would be the last to question the validity of another artist's work, lest  they be next on the chopping block.

But perhaps it's the possible message Collateral sends that has irked those such as Waikato artists Collette Fergus and Bruce McLachlan.

Fergus said Collateral was a "sad mockery of us all and an embarrassment to the arts community".

What possible message could a pile of rubbish send, you ask?

Is it 'My 2-year-old could do that'?

It seems as simple as Mitchell making a statement on the legitimacy of art.

But it does make everyone else look bad, and art or not, why should other artists be happy about that?

Mitchell would still have come under fire had he been in Hamilton and created the piece himself, but he'd be in a better position to defend himself from his critics.

The fact he never saw or touched the piece is one intangible facet of the artwork, and that chutzpah may have helped influence the judge, but it could have done major damage to the collective reputation of the New Zealand art scene.