Turner Prize: classic or dud?

I'm kind of used to seeing painting set up as the alternative to "conceptual art" (and as the article rightly says, there's no conceptual art in the Turner Prize this year) and I haven't seen much exciting painting recently.

Anyway, people continually underestimate just how dull contemporary art was in Britain before a combination of factors took effect to compell teh public to notice the work of artists like Hirst, Collishaw, Turk, Wallinger, Whiteread, which was for the most part inventive, playful and thought-provoking, certainly compared to the bloated neo-expressionism that had preceded it in art schools up and down the country, Goldsmiths being the leading exception. If just for their impact on other artists' work and processes, the 'YBA's' should be lauded.

the rest (of the painting) was incredibly godawful hippy-psychedelic lameness worse than art class at school when i wz 15

(though not worse than the pot i made in pottery aged 13 which the art tracher destroyed before it made a hole in the fabric of human culture and all the hope in the world drained away thru it)

There does seem to be a fashion among contemporary painters for what I like to call mushroomhead doodle nonsense.

My prizewinning Turner entry, as often discussed in the pub, will be a stop-frame animated (is that what you call that sort of animation) remake of Eisenstein's masterpiece using premium fried snacks in place of the actors and the cast of thousands of extras. It will be named "The Kettlechip Potemkin".

oh is it now

read the tube station sign at finsbury park b/wards instead: you get 'krapyrubsnif' - a genuine insight into that area from what i recall of it

conceptual art = invisible man in a flasher's raincoat
(abstract exhibitionism)

(who gives a fuck abt insight? they are artists = they are moral and emotional idiots) (like writers, doctors, scientists, anyone with a hat on basically)

also: "professional deformation"

"why so?" — have you ever met any? (actors are worse though)

On another note:
All art is conceptual, but I understand the term "conceptual art" to mean art in which the symbolic is privileged over the aesthetic - i.e. Martin Creed's "Lights Going On And Off" is not primarily about the aesthetic experience of standing in a room where the lights are going on and off, but the idea of seeing how close you can reduce a work of art to nothing. But once you've articulated your conceptual project, I don't see what is further gained by actually putting it into practice, i.e. the expression of the idea is enough, there's nothing to be further gained by the experience (except publicity etc.).

they're not gurus, they're just people doing stuff same as you: some of them are dicks and some of them are timewasters, some of them aren't

martin creed's dad is a v.well-respected straight down-the-line silversmith

JZ I like yr description but i think it also describes the problem many ppl (incl me)have with loads of 'this stuff' (ahem) - the self-referentiality

ha i suppose i have a very conventional notion about art as being about representing ideas rather than having them (above its station) - the s-r may be a consequence of art being good at having ideas about itself and not much else

(i think there have been alot of other threads about turner/conceptual/etc of course)

a mark-ed disrespect for hats indeed - unless of course they are wearing a 'thinking cap'.

I don't think that was an outburst or particularly ill-conceived. Again, I didn't say seeing conceptual art is pointless, I said it's problematic. It's not problematic to go and see something that has been created as an aesthetic or anti-aesthetic experience. It is more complex when you have something that essenially symbolises an idea. Once you articulate an idea of having lights going on and off in an empty room, once you explain your interest in the idea, the experience of such art is not necessarily pointless but problematic. I suggested that this kind of art is a hook to hang a discourse on, and ultimately it's the discourse not the experience which is more interesting. I have no doubt that there already have been conceptual artists who articulate ideas without ever representing them as part of the 'concept'.

As for your point that all art being conceptual, yes, to quote myself up thread: "all art is conceptual". But there is a category known as "conceptual art" which conceptualises things differently.

Saw an interesting programme the other day involving one of the Chapman Brothers (Jake?) wandering around "Not The Turner Prize" looking at all kinds of representational art and spouting interesting bollocks about elitism.

I'm not so sure the Turner Prize committee plans for tabloid outrage. The shortlist is supposed to answer the question 'which artist under 50 has made the most impact over the past year with their work?' and in most years the four shortlisted artists do not include a 'first choice' - someone like Sarah Lucas always turns down the opportunity to be shortlisted, and they have to choose someone else.

To which I said "Hah! Well, you've just responded to HIS personality, then, haven't you? His art remains the same; if you decide that you like it now, you like it because you're responded to his Cult Of Personality."

HSA just growled and crossed his arms.

I hated it! Too much funny doodle.

was bruce nauman, btw.

o, i didn't realize it was aaron whatsit -- that was just b4 the birthday break-in. pathetic -- duchamp is so over.

If anything the one that won most reminded me of the Vic Reeves book, which was pretty much up it's own arse too.

I'm interested to see what the big oil tank thing is like in a big wood pannelled room instead of a white bare place

I want the new one to be deserted and no one to go to it so it will fail or have to go free. But the bastard would probably just keep it open as a vanity exercise anyway.

N the lady that is, not Angry Kate.

Kate, you do seem very angry today.

People who work in offices who moan about people who work freelance, from home, are completely fucked in the head. We are not leading lives of leisure with private incomes. We are mostly spending our time playing 'hurry up and wait' because some fuckwit in an office hasn't managed to do any of the stuff we need them to in order to finish the job they asked us to do, or we are unable to buy groceries or pay bills because we have not been paid by someone in an office who is responsible for the timely payment of cheques. It is a regular thing not to be paid on time, which an office person NEVER has to cope with. This is why, at least today, office people can suck my throbbing left one.

This is also the case w/arts admin vs freelance artists up here in the 'provinces'. Jill once had to take legal action just to get paid for the work she was contracted to do!

Tuesday: usually good, a bit too Voice ov Yoof perhaps
Saturday: what we non-office types do: blah
occasional long thinkpieces: rub
Book reviews: good.

There, a 'b-' from me. I spose the voiceofyouthness isn't her fault but what editors want, eg editor: 'Oh let's do another one about Buffy the Vampire Slayer'; actual yoof: 'yawn!'

I liked the pottery, and the flowers. I thought the film of the running man was not very interesting at all, and I thought the chapman bros. work was very poor, though I like them loads usually. (I liked it when they did that live-w/britart thing in the observer mag recently, and the people who had the chapman's piece were a bit snidey about it, and j&d's response to this was "what d'you expect from a bunch of fhm reading WANKERS)I saw the opening credits of the tv coverage whilst in the chinese takeaway last night & was reminded that collings = sux0r, but then my crispy noodles w/ black bean sauce arrived, so I had to go to tv-less home. I thought G Perry would win, though I don't know why, he just seemed like the obvious candidate. There you are.

Saatchi is actually hated by young artists now because he'll send a buyer along and the buyer will say '£8000' and when the money does come through it's magicked down to £5000, take it or leave it. If the artist has a gallery, they are splitting 50/50 with the gallery so there are a lot of youngerBa's who aren't too impressed with CS.

Zoe Williams is around 30.

Grayson's transvestitism is pretty integral to the work and his 'difference' is one of the reasons he decided to do art; look at how many of the embroideries look like the stuff on the vases, and the juxtaposition of really weird violent imagery with something as twee as a vase or a doll's dress just underscores that.

so, yes, it is relevant in this case. and, from the interview i read, i believe its a more deeply felt personal thing, and not 'done to shock'. in fact, i get the feeling he'd be happier if people stopped being shocked by it.
that said, if he's THEN saying that his style of dress is in itself an artistic statement, he's undermining that a little. it can (and should) still be something deeply felt, but by offering it up as art, he's inviting others to assess it. that would put it outside of the experience of a lot of non-artist transvestites who would, i'd imagine, rather people just stopped bothering them.

'does he REALLY think he looks good in that? and where on EARTH did he get that shirt from? somebody tell him the 70s revival is OVER and that hair... well, there isn't all that much of it, is there? and STOP SCRATCHING YOUR CROTCH, WE CAN SEE YOU!'

no...

you must look very Glam in front of the telly, nick.

I didn't say whether or not i thought they were going to or not - i just gave my opinion on who i thought deserved it based on, er, the artwork

(Or maybe not, if you're not lucky enough to live near one of the the places lucky enough to be hosting one of the - what is it now? 5? 6? - solo shows that HSA is doing over the next year and a half.)

and yeah. like ned said, american never heard of art.