Pretty Disgusting: The new five dollar note

Grayson Perry tapestry Comfort Blanket, 2014


Responses to the new Australian five dollar note remind us that the old chestnuts of modernist and postmodernists approaches to aesthetics still have some life in them with regard to understanding contemporary culture, both in terms of the qualities of objects and the subjective responses to them.

The bright, plastic money of Australia is already gaudy in comparison with the muted hues and forgiving paper texture of the more globally pervasive American dollar bill and the majority of other national currencies. The new design is arguably a further amplification of these qualities of questionable aesthetic value.

As Robin Boyd’s seminal diatribe The Australian Ugliness attests, it’s hard going for a devout modernist in Australia, you have to make do with dribs and drabs at best. The visual illiteracy of the Australian population has long been bugbear for architects and designers and the reception of the new five dollar note is a case study in disappointment for anyone who holds dear modernist aesthetic principles to do with cohesion, nuance and precision.

What might have been heartening for Boyd and his ilk is that the strong negative reactions to the note are widely shared in the popular press and largely fall in line with modernist sentiments for something more legible and less flamboyant.

The prettiness exemplified in the design of the note is an anathema to the bold plainness of modernism, which regards beauty and necessity as constitutive of each other. As Boyd noted in “The Design of Future Practice”, design ought to have ambitions to do with what is ‘real’ and dignified rather than pretty or even beautiful (1957, 67).

Prettiness is sometimes regarded in a pejorative sense as a minor form of beauty. The weak appeal of pretty things can easily give way to disgust. They tend to lack the force of the sublime and the formal confidence and cohesion common to the beautiful. In this sense prettiness can seem to be the worst of both worlds, insipid and deformed, which is a fusing together of negatives that tend to occur in isolation from each other (deformed things tend to be interesting enough not to be insipid).

At the root of the modernist aesthetic paradigm is the aesthetic category of the sublime, which cleaves to the laudable demands that art, architecture or design must be original, profound and affirmative of human ingenuity. The sublime doesn’t muddle in half measures. Despite being about anxiety inducing shows of force or genius, in the end the sublime involves the kind of cathartic response whereby the audience is purged of their temporary uncertainty in the face of what is reassimilated as emotionally uplifting.

This is not the case for the post modern paradigm, where artistic or technological ambition is regarded with ambivalence. As the American post modern poet John Ashbery said of his expectations regarding his own work, “pleasantly surprising” seemed a better fit than any of the more orgasmic models for aesthetic appreciation and artistic originality.

Compositionally, the note is a motley, in terms of the colours, fonts, and the symbolic content. It’s as scraggly as a prize patch of east coast dry sclerophyll in the dog days of summer and as garish as RSL carpet.

The lack of aesthetic unity is perhaps indicative of the lack of a binding political and historical narrative for the country. There’s a half hearted effort to assert a national identity based on the peculiarities of history and place, with native flora, fauna, architecture and a remote reference to the first Australians in the radial, dot patterns in front of the parliament house. The prominent effigy of the queen is a glaring reminder that such an identity is compromised by a colonial history variously regarded with pride, reprehension, sadness and irony.

The decision to leave the queen in what now looks a comparatively hard, dull grey, etching style, makes her presence on the note seem more overtly anachronistic than in the previous design. While art perhaps ought to have greater ambitions than simply reflecting culture, it was only a year ago that in comparatively anachronistic effort our government reintroduced knights and dames. Perhaps in this regard the note has, unintentionally or not, captured something of the national zeitgeist in manner comparable to Grayson Perry’s no less gaudy efforts to exemplify Britishness.

The note has been likened to vomit, bacteria and clowns. This set of abject things all conform to the idea of something that at once belongs and doesn’t belong, extrusions, passengers or misfits with difficult appeal. The note is the consequence of a cultural, historical and political pluralism that in light of our supposed reverence for democracy we ought to find appealing. As the most vocal responses to the new design demonstrate, egalitarian virtues don’t always translate unproblematically into the objects of culture.


2 thoughts on “Pretty Disgusting: The new five dollar note

  1. Hmmm, I’m not sure I agree I entirely agree with your analysis.

    I don’t think people’s (or at least my) negative responses are because the note doesn’t conform with modernist notions of functionality. In fact, the bank note is highly function—most of the new additions to the design are driven by security measures—and our currency is far more legible than the impossible Greenback. And yes the note eschews a restrained and tasteful palette, but so do many currencies that are regarded as pinnacles of visual communication design.

    But sure, no doubt there is a healthy does of cultural snobbery in some responses to the new design ( However I think it’s a mistake to think that’s all it is. At least my critique of the note as ‘bad design’ isn’t about it’s ’tastefulness’ or its range of colours, or typefaces, graphic styles etc, but rather the designer’s capacity to bring these together in a cohesive way.

    Cohesion isn’t an exclusive property of modernism. The Grayson Perry tapestry at the top of this post is a riot of colours and diverse formal element, and yet Perry has assembled them into a unified whole. Postmodernist design may employ different stylistic standards, but beyond these surface elements, works generally conform to some underlying structural principles that allow us to make visual sense of the work. This is what allows us to sense that one piece of pomo design is ‘resolved’ (even in it’s clashy tension) and another piece is half baked. I would also argue it’s also what allows us to develop aesthetic conclusions about works from diverse cultures that are drawing on different surface standards of ‘rightness’ or ‘taste’ to Western culture.

    To illustrate what I mean, compare this Tadanori Yokoo poster ( with this bad santa poster ( Both throw together diverse formal elements, colours, surface treatments (flat, graphic, photorealistic), but one does it a way that with little cohesive formal structure and the other assembles them into a coherent whole. (How it does this is a much longer blog post.)

    If we put these examples on a spectrum I would argue that the new $5 note falls at the Bad Santa end (in fact, I am know only going to refer to it as the Bad Santa note). My objection to it isn’t that it’s colourful, or busy, or crass; it’s that it’s shit.

    Actually, I’d be delighted to see our currency *skilfully* employ an original visual language that works with the vernacular; How cool would it be if we had a note like the Grayson Perry tapestry!


  2. I can sense an irresolvable nominalist/realist vortex tempting me to write a whole lot and end up back where I started. You’re on unassailable ground with the shitness of the Bad Santa. Though, I’m curious to know what makes the new fiver objectively shit in comparison with the Swiss note, that maybe naively strikes me as mildly worse. I think part of our disagreement is probably fueled by me responding to the note at a naive, impressionistic level, and you with more visual communication expertise. There’s a bit of rescuing the underdog sentiment at work in my own thinking on the matter too. In spite of this, I’m still not giving you carte blanche on the matter. I’d still argue that while there is a lot of pomo art, architecture and design that has elements of cohesion, judging this as successful based on it being cohesive, whether tacit or overt, is judging it by imperatives that are proper to modernist ideals, like singling out the best examples of Dutch landscape art based on the compositional principles of the Italian Renaissance (ie principles not proper to its modality). There’s a long discussion to be strung out here and I’d like to continue it with some kind of publication or pedagogical related outcome in mind.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s