What is the Turner Prize for?
Posted by Steve Hare
Steve Hare is an author, writer, editor and collector.
22 October 2008
‘Detestable absurdities’; ‘a gross outrage to nature’; the contents of a spittoon’…
The annual Turner Prize at times seemed to exist solely as fuel for the more rabid scribes of the redtop press. The sort of people who wish there was an actual Turner prize, rather than just a sponsor’s cheque; a proper Turner painting they could wave in front of the winner and froth, ‘No mate, this is art.’
Before I go any further, it is only fair to mention that the criticisms above were all, of course, directed at the work of JMW Turner himself, and not the shortlisted artists of the last 25 years.
In a recent Guardian interview, Jake Chapman confessed that his ‘most embarrassing moment’ had been ‘losing the Turner Prize to a grown man dressed as a schoolgirl’. These days – after that quarter of a century of controversy, memorable and occasionally forgettable contenders, the Turner Prize seldom shocks, but it almost always surprises. But it doggedly remains the natural outlet for the green ink brigade throughout middle England with some spleen to vent about what the world is coming to, and what’s wrong with a nice landscape?
The offspring, meanwhile, of ‘disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’, have acquired the habit of spending most of a Saturday evening having the ‘100 best films/ads/TV programmes/books/records… ever’ dissected by anonymous celebrities. These shows demonstrate at best a rapidly decreasing attention span, as they dissect, for the most part, the very recent past. The benefit of hindsight is just ‘so yesterday’…
But while every year’s Turner Prize is interesting, and keeps the debate about what, exactly, constitutes ‘art’ alive and kicking, they only really become properly so after a decade or two. With the benefit of that invaluable hindsight – but, much more importantly the continuing output of the artists in contention – you get to see how wrong or right the judges got it, both with the shortlists and the overall winners, and how far and fast art is always moving.
Last year’s Retrospective confirmed that it was almost right for much of the time. At close range the Prize might well look eccentric, and people might well say ‘Goshka who?’; but give it time and you will see an interesting perspective – and often anticipation – on the people who count and matter. (But you do have to allow for a certain movement of the goalposts in this; the condition about artists nominated being under 50 was an afterthought – and somewhat retrospectively helped explain the absence of David Hockney, Lucian Freud, Anthony Caro, Eduardo Paolozzi, Patrick Caulfield … I could go on… amongst the winners and even sometimes the shortlists).
I have no statistics to prove this, but the Prize seems to aim a little younger every year – deliberately seeking out and celebrating if not quite the next best thing, or at least the coming trend. It is decidedly not along the lines of the Oscars and BAFTA, where moribund icons are routinely wheeled out towards the end of the evening for a ‘special award’.
And so it should be. Could you ever justify shortlisting Damien Hirst today, for whom the Prize would be small change, and the attendant publicity a pale candle against the grotesque glare of a diamond-encrusted disco ball, and a mere whisper alongside the telephonic feeding frenzy of anonymous Russians? (And yet Hirst , in his own inimitable way, continues to question, probe and exploit the meaning of art).
The Turner Prize tracks and celebrates changes and developments: the experiments of those at the extreme edges of what we regard as ‘art’. What you see exhibited each year might ultimately represent a blind alley, an unforced error or a final step before a new direction. But it might come to be seen in time as a turning point, a revelation, a new beginning. It is, in its essence, a celebration of the future rather than the past.
It’s at its best when it ignores what everyone else is saying. In its early days you can sense the uncertainty in its own meaning and purpose by its own overreaction to media overreaction. An all-male shortlist would be countered with an all-female one the following year; early shortlists even pitted occasional curators against practitioners – vaguely analogous, I suppose, to playing Fabio Cappello in goal for England – and some way beyond pitting potters against photographers and painters.
The Turner Prize is condemned to live on in popular memory in terms of unmade beds, elephant dung, bisected cows, flickering lights and floating sheds. Does that matter? Not a bit. Does art itself matter? Quite a lot. And the Prize exists to remind us of that fact, and keep us exercised and engaged around the water coolers, bars – and in the galleries. Long may it shock and surprise.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
How much longer Turner needs to spin in his grave?
How much longer do we need waste any time on such wastes of time?
What a ridiculous caricature to bring in “disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” as if this is the alternative to the Turner Prize, and make no mention of the many practising artists, who are fervently opposed to its stultified academic display of outworn modes posturing as innovation. It perfectly fits the description “moribund icons are routinely wheeled out.” As far as “extreme edges” is concerned – who are you kidding! This is bog standard conformist art, endorsed by the art establishment, which now condemns those who don’t fit in with its agenda in a way which is the direct equivalent of those who condemned Turner. The only shocking thing about the Turner Prize is its inanity.
As an Australian i find the complaints made by the British media and public incredibly cosseted and inane. Living in a county that is immensely conservative in regards to the arts i am envious to say the least of the quality and diversity that is apparent in every turner prize.
People have every right to disagree with the turner prize system, its nominees and its winners, but to act as is if British art would be better with the prizes absence seems to be the praxis of the spoilt for choice.
Oh Mr Turner
What shall we do?
We wanted to see fine artistry
Instead we got something not true
So Mr Turner
What do you think?
They put all their simple ideas
On the same footing as Titian and Memlinc
Help! Mr Turner
How can it be?
The establishment’s bagged all authority
And puts down dissenters like me
In the end Mr Turner
There’s not a lot we can do
We’re expected to applaud all this nonsense
To concur they’re exactly as you
The problem with aesthetic moments that are not grounded in ethics and belief is that in order for them to have any life at all they need an occasion. Such occasions are, by their nature, ephemeral. The momentary aesthetic is contrived, superficial and short lived, often very self indulgent, and depends for its significance on the inflated grandiose occasion. Is the Turner Prize such an occasion? For further reading please see Soren Kierkegaard’s ‘Either/Or’.
As a starting point to understand totalitarian inclinations please see Karl Popper’s ‘The Open Society and its Enemies’. Whilst Popper is primarily concerned with national government, it is worth noting totalitarian characteristics and then asking whether any of these apply to the contemporary art establishment. For example look at the manifesto for Altermodern on the Tate website, and consider what you think.
By the way, if you would like to see a ‘nice landscape’ please have a look on my website, and see what you think. I take the word ‘nice’ to mean ‘fine or subtle’ and ‘requiring careful attention’. (Oxford Dictionary).
If nothing else isn’t the Turner Prize good simply because it keeps the debate about art alive? Without it we wouldn’t be having this discussion and, RN Clarke, you wouldn’t get your platform.
Starting with the absurdly pretentious descriptions on the walls that would have made Lord Gnome puke, I would claim that only art in the exhibition, other than the nicely formed exit times was the comments posted in the cafe outside. I know that the history of art is littered with aging fuddy duddys decrying the impressionists etc., but really, were the other entries so bad that they were worse that this garbage. Previous years have great stuff, but the judges seemed to have lost their minds… and who wrote that nonesense on the walls. Even as an avid scrabble player I could not have come up with “Recontextualizing”. Please at least paint over this garbage. I want my entrance money back in the worst possible way.
my best friend and most talented artest DAN just killed himself at 37 i want all to know you dont have to be dead to be a talented artist you express feelings through art that others cant and theres the talent that destroys the mind hard life or not im so angry im going to enter this compation in memory of DAN
IF SOME ONE WILL TELL ME HOW TO
Some of the comments on that board in the cafe cracked me up no end. Somewhat brilliant though, an inevitable idea it doesn’t get much more now.
Sorry to hear the artist DAn killed himself, if only art was respected in all of its mediums, perhaps then more people would benefit from it!!! love badger and cheese
i think this years turner is diffrent and i dont realy get it i thing the turner is bad all together and should be stoperd for ever and ever and we should do something else with are life
thanks, if you have reading this you have wasted 20 seconds of your life tyvm…..
i think the terner is not very good because i dont get it i went to look at it this year and i thought that this years was realy bad and i hope no one wins it i think i could do better if i was high on drugs
tyvm for reading and and party
it was fun but mentaly odd and bizzar. lolz ^^
ÿŽiQ˳RÆô÷ÊÚã14o0;0Ö╬¼Áo·Ë
it was a good idea work and i liked the 1st pice of work they had in there exhibition of the turner prize was good
BIG NEWS!!
I have discovered the origin of conceptual art!
Conceptual art arises when a society becomes rich enough to pamper kids through school, then uni or art college, with the safety net of benefits, the health service etc.. A society where there is no longer any need to work or strive for survival or even comfort. Witness the birth of conceptual art! CONCEPTUAL ART IS THE THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF LAZINESS IN SOCIETY.
My experience of conceptual art is that it’s all about the artists’ writing on the wall, together with dash of pretentiousness in the eye of the beholder.
GO DO SOMETHING USEFUL!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooo deeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaarr
me.how dull.would i travel 100 miles to see this shit?
Some of the work is good and some of it is bad.
All my work is good.
Oops, this discussion’s gone off the topic.
Let’s get back to discussing what the Turner Prize is for. Is it for the generation of debate around contemporary art?
Thanks
The art nominated for this prize is I am sorry to say not art.Art is supposed to speak to the average joe without having to use complex and winding description.An average duffus like myself can see the beauty in a picasso, it speaks to me immediately on a primal level that doesn’t need words.I don’t need some art boffin having to try to convince me that something that is clearly not art is just because you used some fancy words
Some of the work was, IMHO, challenging and provocative. Some was old hat…..but the prize does inspire more debate than anything else in the art world. Are people in Lancashire pubs talking about the Turner Prize or The Pre-Raphaelite Exhibition in Manchester? I know the answer in mine…..!!
……and WHY didn’t Runa Islam get the award???
to a friend…: ‘I had a thought about installation art. The turner prize installation, involving the supermarket check out and the dirty dishes, and its ‘confessional’ nature, was assembled by a person who we can suppose spends her time between a dirty kitchen and the super market. The genious of her work is that she has taken these two influences and mixed them up. For you and I, this seems a little mundane, as we have more intersting lives. However, if we were to apply the concept to our existence, I wonder what we would come up with. I think that mine would be centred around the office, with some outdoor equipment thrown in. What do you reckon?’
REVOLT AGAINST MEDIOCRITY!
What bull**** is this with the Turner Prize?
When has mediocrity ever been something that made J.M.W. Turner proud?He worked ALL of his life to achieve his mastery and he worked with the greatest of his time. Why this desire by the organization that bears his name to underscore his work by showing MEDIOCRITY, unless it is pure JEALOUSY and UTTER CONTEMPT for BEAUTY IN ART!
The artists this year are the most boring, uninspiring pieces of mediocrity that it was possible to use against the mind of the people watching. Their art is a stab at the minds of people. It is not encouraging them to seek beauty or seek any uplifting discussion, only reactions like a bad tv show.
If I want to discuss art and keep it fresh, I don’t need the Turner Prize to do it. It is utterly contemptuous of the organizers and supporters to think that THEY know what it takes for people to start talking about art.
The Turner Prize organizers are making ART a joke, stabbing at the positive things around us all because they’re ART TROLLS. I don’t want to see their little ugly psyches. I’m not their shrink.
People must REVOLT against the raping of their culture by these vultures.
REVOLT.
Flag this response for moderation