|You are in: Talking Point|
Monday, 4 November, 2002, 08:32 GMT
Turner Prize: Is it art?
"Cold, mechanical, conceptual bullshit" is how culture minister Kim Howells has described this year's Turner Prize entries.
The Tate Modern exhibition "infuriated" and "disappointed" Mr Howells and he pinned a frank note to a message board at the gallery on his way out.
After studying art for four years in the 60s, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting believes British art is "lost" and we need to invoke more passion about it.
He laments that plain speaking is always missing from discussions about art; and to make amends, compared Liam Gillick's "very, very boring" perspex roof to a canteen ceiling and said he wouldn't cross the road for Keith Tyson's sculptures.
Mr Howells recognises that this is the work that sells and that modern artists are shaped by the tastes of their teachers but called for a creative revolution to "blow them out of the water."
Do you find Mr Howells' frankness refreshing or limiting? Are his views old-fashioned to you or truthful? How much credibility does the controversial Turner Prize have with you?
This Talking has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Katie, Kent, England
Tracy Emin's bed looks like mine after I've made it.
The objective of this type of art is to make people feel emotion, regardless of whether that emotion is positive or negative. If you feel sadness or pity for these artists, you've completed your part of the bargain with them; they have gotten an emotion out of you. Personally, I make a point of not feeling anything. I have no gripe against modern art, but the Turner Prize ignores an awful lot of good art in order to show us the ordinary.
I really like the entries this year. They are accessible and interactive, and the sort of thing that keeps young people interested in becoming artists. Some people obviously think art is just about pretty portraits and pleasant landscapes.
It was the great sage Red Green who said "There's only one way that I judge art. If I can do it, it's not art."
The Turner Prize is much more about a media event than art, and as such reflects an increasing trend of modern life, form over substance.
Art is anything one calls art. It is not simply oils or watercolours on canvass. Why limit the boundaries of human expression?
I have studied Art at college and university, and what I see at the Turner prize is lack of talent, a child produces better work with more meaning. I'm sorry but last year's winner with the light turning on and off was pointless. Bring back the sketch books and the paint brushes, and let "real artists" produce work that people want!
Personally I think it's all very twisted. It's not real art, it's just bits of rubbish and they call it art, that's not talent.
Typographical error. For "Tate Modern", read "Tat Modern".
I read a comment that said the entries for the Turner Prize at least made you think! Well I'm sorry but that is total nonsense. The entries don't make me think they just make me angry and sad. How anyone can possibly mistake the dross that some of these people call "art" is utterly beyond me, and, I would hope beyond most sane people! The minister made very honest comments and I would like to thank him on behalf of all of us who recognise this rubbish for what it really is; a way for people with no talent to gain some attention!
You cannot blame the artists for what they produce, whether it is painting, modelling, photography or the sort of thing they put in the for the Turner prize. You blame the people who brainwashed them into this way of thinking, the universities and art colleges. I fully agree with Mr Howells, what a waste of time effort and money from every one involved in the Tate Modern and the Turner prize.
It's not the pieces that I despise as much as the smug tones of the descriptions given by the critics that wind me up. There is a nasty "in crowd" feeling of "if you don't get it it's because you have no depth"
Art, like music, is not made to win prizes - so who really cares? The artists who are nominated and win didn't create their works to win prizes, so who is it you're all attacking?
I like the idea of a prize that helps push the boundaries and makes us think about art. However every year we have this debate we never seem to get beyond name calling. No one seems to be expressing any opinion about what IS art, and then measuring the Turner entrants against a standard. Can someone on the Turner committee put forward their definition of Art?
One of art's main functions is to make people see things from a different viewpoint and the Turner Prize obviously does that. Whether you like it or not is a matter of personal preference but it at least made you think. Artists have always experimented and most of these experiments have been unpopular at the time. Fifty years from now many of the exhibits will be accepted as quite conventional.
Steve Davy, UK
Just let the artists continue building their toy pieces of conceptual art in their funny little sand-pits, and let the media continue using their crayons to write pieces about the artists in their funny little sand-pits.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue living our lives.
As pretty and colourful as the exhibits are, I don't like the idea of paying such a huge sum of money for the prize.
There are more deserving, and genuinely talented, artists around.
It's worrying that a culture minister does not know enough about modern trends in culture to make a more informed comment on what he has seen.
Whatever happened to paint?
So an MP doesn't like it - tough. It's just another example of an MP who thinks his views matter. I consider the Turner Prize to be very relevant and from what I've seen so far on this site I will very likely go to the Tate and see the real thing!
Some random thoughts: Art acts as social commentary. A person can only render into something else a quality they have seen in themselves. Basically, it's not the art that's boring, it's the person looking at it.
The best thing to do about the Turner Prize is to ignore it. Don't report on it, don't pay to go and see it, don't talk about it. Then these artists will be forced to stop thinking about how to get headlines, and instead start thinking about art.
Use the prize money to pay for art classes for the nominees. Now THAT'S a concept!
Richard B, Essex, UK
Mr Howells - is he the most honest politician in Britain?
The Turner Prize contestants are chosen as a result of their track records over the previous year. If people are not familiar with the works made by the artists prior to their selection then, inevitably, they will find their entry exhibits inaccessible. I work in the arts, I travel abroad on business and I am well aware of the reasons that presently ensure that Britart has such an important place in the international art world. If you still cannot understand what I am on about then try asking why it is that Tate Modern has such a high level of visitor attendance.
Can we all please try and ignore the pathetic, attention seeking child that is the Turner Prize, and hopefully it will go away?!
I think the Turner Prize stimulates thought and discussion about the nature and direction of art. Often its entries seem bizarre in concept or appear poorly executed - but at least it constantly challenges our perceptions.
Alex Ainley, Italy
I have just spilled my coffee on my desk and keyboard. I think it makes a jolly good piece of art. Can anyone tell me how to enter the competition?
Well, it's that time of year again when the media dusts off and reprints their lame jokes about the Turner prize nominees.
There is a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of the prize - it's not about celebrating the cutting edge of contemporary art. It's all about getting cheap publicity for the Tate gallery and its sponsors. Hence each year they carefully pick one work which will give the tabloids a chance to trot out the usual nonsense about how "My three-year-old child could do better" (or even "I've just spilt coffee on my keyboard - is it art?")
The Turner prize isn't going to change until the media grow up a little and start ignoring the deliberate sensationalism of the selecting committee, rather than encouraging it by providing the free column inches they seek.
31 Oct 02 | Entertainment
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top Talking Point stories now:
Links to more Talking Point stories are at the foot of the page.
|E-mail this story to a friend|
Links to more Talking Point stories
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> | To BBC World Service>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy