Turner Prize

bbrap

WTF is that all about? How can any of the 'exhibits' be classed as art? And as for that Gompertz creature with ridiculous hairstyle espousing the merits of said art is beyond me. I might have to enter next year . I'm thinking of recording all my farts for a whole year, putting a speaker amongst some potted saplings and calling it "wind in the willows 2". Wadda ya think?

ballysmate

Or dump a load of manure and call it 'A load of shite' ?
Should fit in well.

team47b

This IS art, but a type of art that only exists to fulfill the criteria set down.

Art is in the journey of reaching understanding, as with any journey you have to move forward.

Oh, I'll get me coat :oops:

keef66

I find it thought provoking.

And the thought it invariably provokes is WTF is that all about?? Same for Will Gompertz' hair...

capt_slog

Appropriately called the "Turner Prize" because the poor bugger is probably revolving in his grave.

sungod

'art' has always had a large element of fashion to it, for a long time figurative art was about the only accepted form, anything else was mere decoration or, gasp, craft

abstract and other forms, at first derided, have become fashionable (aka saleable) and so accepted as art, though the decorators and craftspeople are still firmly excluded

photography is an interesting example, mostly it is unacceptable as art, but if unrecognizably blurred, blobby, cross-processed etc. it may be allowed in, i'm flipping a mental coin on whether buy a willy ronis print (le nu provencal), of course it's not art, but i know the story behind it and i'm a softy for romance

as the years pass, more radical forms are validated by the industry (dealers, galleries, patrons, institutions etc.) gain acceptance (aka money), become fashionable, and enable the industry to thrive

the turner prize is a part of this industry, the judges decide who shall be 'in', value of existing works increases (trebles all round), artist and dealers get paid more for future work, and it's good excuse for another party, hic

nothing wrong with that, though when someone gets overexcited/precious and thinks it's changing the nature of reality or something, i am ever so tempted to give 'em a gentle but sobering slap in the chops

frieze london soon, if you hear of a kerfuffle it may be me snapping

bbrap

So in essence. The "in" items or artists are judged to be "in" by self appointed knob heads who then convince the gullible to part with vast sums for overpriced tat. The gullible then have to agree that their purchases are in fact wonderful in order to not look more stupid than they already do. The circle then continues including ever more bizarre exhibits in order to keep the machine running. Fascinating, but I think I'll spend less time trying to understand and hence deemed "in", so in the words of the dragons "I'm out" and glad to be so.

sungod

to be fair, there's a large amount of interesting art produced by honest, creative people, it won't all be to everyone's taste, but life'd be boring if we all liked the same things

the problem is when the market becomes more important than the art, beyond the luvvies the end state is even worse: for years there's been a trade in art held in free ports

traded through opaque transactions with no need to involve any pesky tax authorities or other oversight, it's rarely if ever seen, it exists in secure, climate controlled environment, waiting for the next transaction, it may never even physically move, money flows, records are updated, title (as recorded only in the brokers' files) passes

sad for what someone probably poured their heart into and was paid a, relative, pittance for

rick_chasey

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19715002#p19715002]bbrap[/url] wrote:

So in essence. The "in" items or artists are judged to be "in" by self appointed knob heads who then convince the gullible to part with vast sums for overpriced tat. The gullible then have to agree that their purchases are in fact wonderful in order to not look more stupid than they already do. The circle then continues including ever more bizarre exhibits in order to keep the machine running. Fascinating, but I think I'll spend less time trying to understand and hence deemed "in", so in the words of the dragons "I'm out" and glad to be so.

In fairness, those 'knob heads' have probably invested a lot more effort and interest in art over their lifetime and indeed this year into new and current art, and so probably are in a better position to establish what is high quality and what isn't.

It's the curse of all arts - from paintings through to literature and everything in between. People are comfortable with taking quantitative experts at their word - scientists, mathematicians, even economists (with their great track record), but as soon as it's art it's all different.

Treat a piece of art like you would a scientific study. Understand its providence, its context, it's execution and give it some effort. THEN, you'll be in a position to form a proper opinion.

bbrap

I agree that we all have different tastes and that is a good thing. However I do think there is a point where when something is patently outside of what the average person in the street would view as art (or even artistic) and said art is being lauded by the great and good as being wonderful and that if you don't get it you are somewhat uneducated and ignorant, It is time that the unwashed stand up and say "No, actually that is a load of rubbish, if you've just paid £x0000 quid for it go get your head examined".

Can't even pretend to understand the stuff about free port trading. Surely someone will cash in sometime and someone else will be stuck with an "artwork" that has fallen out of fashion and gets a right royal rogering in the process. No doubt the wide boys and traders will never suffer that fate.

Whats the saying? You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

Me, I know what I like, and it ain't a pile of bricks or a fur coat sewn onto a chair. Too pretentious for me.

Night Night

finchy

I'd love to get a glimpse into the mind of the judges. Of all the art produced in Britain over a year, how do they decide that an installation of some coats on chairs is among the 4 best pieces?



Hardly worthy of winning a prize named after Turner IMO.





I'm going to agree with Capt Slog on this one.

eric_draven

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19714661#p19714661]keef66[/url] wrote:

I find it thought provoking.

And the thought it invariably provokes is WTF is that all about?? Same for Will Gompertz' hair...

I think it means the people he knows don't really like him,because if they did they would surely tell him to do something about it,as it clearly looks like to anyone else the battle is lost

team47b

The Apple is not the orange but try writing 6 different narratives about the coats on chairs piece, then try that with the Turner.

norvernrob

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19715136#p19715136]finchy[/url] wrote:

I'd love to get a glimpse into the mind of the judges. Of all the art produced in Britain over a year, how do they decide that an installation of some coats on chairs is among the 4 best pieces?



Hardly worthy of winning a prize named after Turner IMO.





I'm going to agree with Capt Slog on this one.

Is the chair one something to do with none of them facing another, so that the wearers of the furs don't have to look anyone in the eye?

Am I an art critic and do I win a prize?

Ps: It's still sh*t and requires zero talent.

Ben6899

We went to the MoMA back in June. I'd recommend it; there are some simply stunning pieces to gawp at.

At the time (finished 7th September), they were exhibiting a retrospective of Yoko Ono's "One Woman Show". This Guardian article - http://tinyurl.com/pvacmfe - describes Ono as misunderstood. After seeing the exhibition, I'd say that's a very sympathetic analysis by the writer.

As I commented to my girlfriend at the time "This is bollox. Can we go and look at Gilbert and George and Warhol?"

DeVlaeminck

I can appreciate art if it's thought provoking or challenging in some way or if I find it aesthetically pleasing. I don't think the Turner stuff requires huge talent but it is often thought provoking and sometimes it just looks nice too. So long as people approach it with an open mind though one opinion is as valid as another - I don't think something is of inherent value just because an expert says it is - that seems to create an unhealthy circularity of opinion.

Anyway I'd actually rather a gallery full of modern art than visit the national gallery - I just don't find roomfulls of old masters particularly inspiring. Obviously you have to appreciate the skill they took to paint - though as I am not a painter I can't appreciate the techniques to the extent my wife who does paint a bit can. Paintings from the more modern period hold more interest for me but again while the execution of the painting may have qualities that can't be really be argued against the idea (style, subject etc) is the important thing and ideas should be open to challenge and not just by experts.

mr_goo

My daughter went who to Art Uni Bmth for 4 years claims that the Turner Prize isn't for the general public. It is for ponces who think they know what art is.
We saw real art this year at the Uffizi in Florence. But I still think the National Gallery in London is far better for its diverse exhibition of the various movements in art.

Giraffoto

I find it safer not to try to judge art, I instead apply my aesthetic ignorance to the question of how decorative I find something. Does anyone else when they're in an art gallery spend the whole time thinking up captions?

forehead

Drum and bass producer Om-Unit tweeted last week, something along the lines of;

"I've been nominated for 'Best Producer' at this year's Bass Awards. I don't believe that Art and Competition should exist together, please don't vote for me."