The demise of the them-and-us mentality on the Irish art scene helps ensure the 176th annual RHA exhibition is big, lively and of a high standard, writes Aidan Dunne, Art Critic

You could say that the Royal Hibernian Academy is on a roll, but it has been on a roll for quite a while now, and shows no sign of stopping. Where did it all go right? Well, it has taken a huge level of commitment from many individuals, but also the demise of the us-and-them mentality that for a long time characterised the Irish artistic scene. Artists who would traditionally have been antipathetic to the academy have seen that it represents a valuable forum and focus for their work and ideals and, in turn, the academy has changed to accommodate a wider diversity of input. Not least there is the fact that its exhibitions programme is one of the most adventurous and ambitious in the country.

All of which is evident in the academy's 176th Annual Exhibition, which is big, lively and keeps to a generally high standard. The roll-call of new associate members - Remco de Fouw, Gary Coyle, Eithne Jordan, Maeve McCarthy and Michael Cullen - gives some indication of the direction the academy is taking. But equally, change hasn't meant a dilution of certain core values. Stephen McKenna, who became president this year, underlined that in his catalogue essay last year: drawings, painting and sculpture will remain at the heart of what the academy is about. The re-establishment of the Academy School is essential to the success of the overall strategy and McKenna reports real progress on that front.

In fact the proposed changes, already approved, should greatly enhance the facilities of the academy building as a whole, as well as tackling some shortcomings in the existing layout. There remains the thorny issue of funding. Some money is there, and concerted moves are in train to raise what is necessary. The stakes are high, but it's worth the effort: all going well, the academy will be brought to a whole new level of effectiveness as a cultural resource.

In terms of the 176th annual show, one example of change is apparent within a staple genre: portraiture. Going back a few years, whatever their technical merit, the portraits in the RHA were on the whole staid exercises in bland flattery.

Now there is a distinct and promising edginess to what we see. A worthy winner, Maeve McCarthy picked up the new portrait prize for her conventional but intensely observed painting of Kevin Kiely. The oblique composition echoes Degas and Manet. Roddy Doyle, hands thrust in pockets, isn't giving much away in Michael O'Dea's gruff, businesslike, strongly characterised portrayal.

O'Dea, meanwhile, is the subject in Una Sealy's bold, empathic portrait. Along with O'Dea, James Hanley is probably the closest thing we have to being an "official" portrait painter, one likely to be commissioned when depictions of prominent individuals are required. Yet as his more personal work makes clear, Hanley's assertive, overtly masculine approach is always slightly self-deprecating, mischievously subversive of itself.

Amelia Stein's photographic study of him, with sutures across a nasty looking gash on his forehead, a wounded hero, might be a sly reference to this amalgam of toughness and vulnerability. Stein herself, incidentally, turns up in a nicely tentative portrait by O'Dea (should these people get out more?) that has a Sarah Purser-like feel to it.

Among other portraits, Alan Daly's drawing of Senija is lively and vigorous, as is Margaret Deignan's pastel self-portrait, while David O'Kane's Portrait wittily, and darkly, evokes ideas of egocentricity and narcissism and Joe Dunne takes on the daunting task of a group portrait with great - indeed prize-winning - success.

PHOTOGRAPHY HAS GRADUALLY been assimilated into the annual exhibition, to the extent that this year sees the inauguration of a new award, the Curtin O'Donoghue prize (it went to Donal Sheehan).

In the late 19th century, the popular, understandable assumption that photography would render painting obsolete turned out to be partly correct in that a vast industry surrounding portraiture was superseded by the camera. Given that part of their stock in trade was portraiture, the academicians' traditional distaste for photography was understandable. But times have changed.

So much so that there is considerable give and take between painting and photography. Patrick Redmond won a prize for his painted but photographic-looking close-up of Raymond. And Anna Rackard's poised photographic study of Michelle Curly suggests a knowledge not only of photographer August Sander but also the history of painting.

The question arises as to whether photographic portraits are eligible not only for photographic prizes but also for the portrait award because, on this evidence, they might well merit it.

A similar point in relation to landscape could be made about Simon Burch's meticulously crafted panoramic photograph M59 Galway-Clifden Motorway. It makes a point, or several points, in a visually elegant way and is a powerful landscape composition.

Sean Hillen opts for an older method in his more broadly satirical collage The Great Falls at the IFSC, but it is clear that digital media have dispensed with the habitual notion encapsulated in Ansel Adams' observation that people don't quite trust painting but always believe photographs.

The observational immediacy of Barrie Cooke's Matura River, Spring 2003, of Donald Teskey's charcoal drawings of waves breaking against rocks and Geraldine O'Reilly's atmospheric account of the densely stratified layers of rock that make up Downpatrick Head, all come across as being true and authoritative.

Equally the omnivorous precision of Sahoko Blake in Painter and Model, of Robert Bates in Fitzgerald's Farm and Martin Gale in his meticulously constructed rural narratives: all are convincing in ways that photographs are usually not.

Landscape in myriad manifestations is the backbone of the show. The largest award, the Hennessy Craig Scholarship (worth €12,000), went to Keith Wilson, a fine painter of quiet temperament and a choice few would quibble with. There's a tough lyricism to Eithne Jordan's views of utilitarian rural spaces as opposed to the mystical luminosity of Veronica Bolay's lyrical compositions.

Several regular exhibitors acquit themselves predictably well, but TP Flanagan is in amazing form with a beautiful group of paintings, Brett McEntaggart sticks close to home in a spirited series of Sandycove studies and Carey Clarke shows a remarkable set of three identical views of a lighthouse in morning, evening and moonlight.

Also noteworthy are Niall Naessens, Marc Reilly and Charles Harper, who shows a great city painting.

Apart from landscape, the same applies to the show overall. Regular exhibitors are dependably good. Rose Stapleton's interiors are object lessons in organising pictorial space. It's good to see Colin Harrison shown here. Gene Lambert, Tom Haran, Eoin McHugh, Gypsy Ray, Mark Grehan, Gillian Lawler, Cara Thorpe and David Begley are all worth checking out. One of the best figure compositions happens to be by a photographer, Amy O'Riordan.

Among the sculpture, pieces by Henry Pim (a wonderful piece of work, Conglomerates), Elaine Griffin, Patrick O'Reilly (who took the sculpture prize), Olivia Musgrave, Sophie Ryder, Killian Schurman, Deirdre McLoughlin, Sarah O'Flaherty, Brian Palm, Catherine Greene and Melanie le Brocquy are essential viewing, as are printmakers Aisling Noone, Anthony Lyttle, Naomi Sex, Michael Timmins and Valerie Hannan.

NOT BEING SELECTED from open submission has always been a cause of disappointment for artists but last year, particularly, many felt aggrieved at their non-inclusion. And, judging by individual examples, in some cases justifiably so. This isn't just a matter of ideological differences. Skilled artists who felt that the RHA was the logical repository for the artistic standards they believe in and adhere to felt unfairly excluded. While it is likely that many feel exactly that way this year as well, first impressions are that the open submission has been more generously accommodated.

There is as well, for the first time, a forum for those whose work didn't make it, though the evidence is that only a fraction of those eligible chose to exhibit at the Bad Art Gallery. Much of what is there is distinctly underwhelming. There are many stylistic echoes of better known names: versions of Shinnors, McSweeney, Teskey. Not a great deal makes you think: "Well that should be up in Ely Place."

Among the pieces that do prompt exactly that thought, though, are those by Susan Gogan, Daniel White and Stephen Farrell. All, interestingly enough, show photographs and we will surely hear from all of them again. The annual selection process, in any case, despite involving a substantial jury, is fallible and probably always will be - and those who fall foul of it should take heart from that knowledge.

RHA 176th Annual Exhibition, Royal Hibernian Academy Gallagher Gallery until July 8, 01-6612558