Posted by: okathleen | May 14, 2008

Philistines

 

The Turner Prize is no stranger to controversy. The very name Turner was a contentious issue for some time, however it was eventually accepted that Turner was, in his day, an artist whose own techniques courted criticism, and for this reason the name stuck. (I do wonder what he would make of this year’s shortlist. No painters for starters…)There was also much rumbling over the issue of a prize, and a competition, not to mention a sponsor. What does ‘made by people for people’ mean? Who ever made the installation below – didn’t make it for me. But then, who is it for? Commissions were and are taken for wealthy patrons, how does that affect the view of the artist and the content of the painting? One less chin, a little less cross-eyed, he who pays the painter plays the tune, but what happens when the painter paints for himself?  This issue has become more and more apparent during assignments. For whom are we writing? Who is the audience? Tone, style and content waver accordingly. ‘Art as articulating truth’, which was how judges described last year’s winner, is a fantastic statement. Whose art, and whose truth?

Ruth Clark Photography

“A mannequin perched on a toilet and a cartoon cat were among the artworks chosen on Tuesday to compete for the Turner Prize, a traditional flash point for controversy about British art, Reuters reported. No painters made the shortlist of four artists. The nominees were sculptors and visual artists: Runa Islam, Goshka Macuga, Cathy Wilkes and Mark Leckey. Mr. Leckey features cartoon characters in his work, Ms. Wilkes uses shop mannequins in many of her installations, Ms. Islam recreates cult movie scenes, and Ms. Macuga draws inspiration from the German horror film “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.”

Anticipating a hostile or derisive response from critics and newspapers, Stephen Deuchar, director of Tate Britain in London and chairman of this year’s Turner jury, said: “This is art made by people for people. What is vital about the Turner Prize is that it creates informed debate about art. People are not frightened to argue about its merits and demerits.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/arts/14arts-SHORTLISTANN_BRF.html?ref=todayspaper

 

 Deuchars defends the choice on a Radio 4 interview:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7399082.stm

Advertisements

Responses

  1. What a curious way to ward off criticism in the tabloids … ‘art made by people for people’. Seems to me like he’s writing the headlines for the Mirror for them!

    Also seems to me that the awarding of ‘national’ prizes says more about the manufacture of a national identity/community than it does about art. And that’s why the tabloids always have a field day.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: