The Turner Prize

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 04-05-2010 09:34PM

M'eh. I guess it is a problem of modern art that it has such a specific language attached to it that doesn't really seem like it means anything unless you already understand it. The hyper-inflated prices some people get-Emin, Hirst, Banksy etc-doesn't help either, people tend to resent people making money off things they don't understand, hell I don't understand why someone with good depth perception, spatial awareness and fitness gets paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a week to kick a ball. And I was raised in a house where modern art was all around and I've been studying it for three years yet I still sometimes see an article or an exhibition and think "you're taking the piss". Generally I think the problem most people have is the gap between the content and the concept and the language which attempts to bridge it, which is very academic.

Oh by the way, you know who else didn't like modern art? NAZIS that's who

brianthebard · 04-05-2010 09:35PM

How can you toss Banksy in with those other two as if they're all the same???? *question marks*

I know I already said it earlier but people need to understand the difference between modern art and post-modern art.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 04-05-2010 09:43PM

Just making the point that the amounts of money involved can piss people off a bit, Banksy would be as well known and as highly priced as the other two, and if asked to name two current 'modern' artists I'd say a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst, not saying they're the same at all at all

Kold · 04-05-2010 09:44PM

We're Post-Post-Modern at least. Probably isn't good to have any labels at this stage. Thing is, there's such a huge amount of artists out there making different work that to say that you don't like contemporary art means you haven't bothered your arse looking at much. In which case the people calling art b*llocks here are just completely ignorant tools.

Contemporary art would be the best term even though contemporary can be used to describe work as old as 50 years.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 04-05-2010 09:54PM

brianthebard wrote: »

How can you toss Banksy in with those other two as if they're all the same???? *question marks*

I know I already said it earlier but people need to understand the difference between modern art and post-modern art.

Ooh that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to illustrate the point that the fame and money involved can be part of what pisses people off, Banksy's very well known and pretty much as highly priced as the other two, or at least well into the territory that people would think of as ridiculous. If asked to name two well known current artists I'd imagine a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst or Emin, only reason I lumped them together

Third time typing this and I'm boring myself so it doesn't go through this time I give up

brianthebard · 04-05-2010 10:23PM

Kold wrote: »

We're Post-Post-Modern at least. Probably isn't good to have any labels at this stage. Thing is, there's such a huge amount of artists out there making different work that to say that you don't like contemporary art means you haven't bothered your arse looking at much. In which case the people calling art b*llocks here are just completely ignorant tools.

Contemporary art would be the best term even though contemporary can be used to describe work as old as 50 years.

Very true, lots of people complaining here about modern artists couldn't name six off hand.

Demi Happy Oats wrote: »

Ooh that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to illustrate the point that the fame and money involved can be part of what pisses people off, Banksy's very well known and pretty much as highly priced as the other two, or at least well into the territory that people would think of as ridiculous. If asked to name two well known current artists I'd imagine a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst or Emin, only reason I lumped them together

Very untrue, you think Banksy's works are priced in the same league as a 50m work by Hirst? Hirst and Emin are two of the biggest names in the art world atm, Banksy has become popular in the past few years but isn't in the same league in any sense.

Kold · 04-05-2010 10:33PM

Demi Happy Oats wrote: »

Ooh that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to illustrate the point that the fame and money involved can be part of what pisses people off, Banksy's very well known and pretty much as highly priced as the other two, or at least well into the territory that people would think of as ridiculous. If asked to name two well known current artists I'd imagine a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst or Emin, only reason I lumped them together

Third time typing this and I'm boring myself so it doesn't go through this time I give up

Nope, Hirst is on a completely different scale as the other two. He's the richest artist in the world.

Cheap Thrills! · 04-05-2010 10:41PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Does anybody remember the KLF / Justified Ancients of Mu Mu? After their musical exploits, they set up the K-Foundation art award for the "worst artist of the year". In 1993, they awarded a £40k prize to Richard Whiteread, outside the Tate Gallery, just after he had picked up his Turner Prize & £20k for best artist of the year, in the Tate Gallery!

The following year, as the Turner Prize was being awarded, they hijacked the media wagon, by burning £1 million, which they filmed & toured with, under the name of "Watch the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid". (An act which they later admitted to regretting)

YES ! I remember that......used to quite like KLF, poor fcukers burning all their loot. Still though, cocknockery describes it best.....pretentious b0ll0x.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 04-05-2010 10:49PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Very true, lots of people complaining here about modern artists couldn't name six off hand.

Very untrue, you think Banksy's works are priced in the same league as a 50m work by Hirst? Hirst and Emin are two of the biggest names in the art world atm, Banksy has become popular in the past few years but isn't in the same league in any sense.

No I don't, but I do correctly think that they regularly go for six figure sums, or the territory that people would find ridiculous

starbelgrade · 04-05-2010 11:10PM

Demi Happy Oats wrote: »

No I don't, but I do correctly think that they regularly go for six figure sums, or the territory that people would find ridiculous

I don't think the money or fame that the likes of Hirst commands is what irks people - as far as fame goes, 99% of the population wouldn't recognise him if they passed him in the street and most wouldn't know much about his bank balance.

What irks people is that they fear what they cannot understand, or cannot understand, that often there is no need to understand. A Van Gogh holds no such fear - "that would look nice in the sitting room", but a plastic box containing a preserved dead animal has no such comforts.

spinandscribble · 04-05-2010 11:15PM

Art is so incredibly hard to pin down its so open ending.

its annoys the hell out of me when people are limited enough to think the only worthwhile art is realistic paintings and the like.

Richard Wright, the current Turner prize winner is FAR from the image many have of artists displaying poop. Not my cup of tea, Hiorns is more up my street but there it is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/turner-prize/6753775/Richard-Wright-Turner-Prize-2009-winner.html

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 04-05-2010 11:20PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't think the money or fame that the likes of Hirst commands is what irks people - as far as fame goes, 99% of the population wouldn't recognise him if they passed him in the street and most wouldn't know much about his bank balance.

What irks people is that they fear what they cannot understand, or cannot understand, that often there is no need to understand. A Van Gogh holds no such fear - "that would look nice in the sitting room", but a plastic box containing a preserved dead animal has no such comforts.

Possibly true, what I was basing my statements on was my experience of people seeing a piece of art and their initial reaction being "sure I could do that!/that's considered art/people get degrees to do that/pay money for that?" Hirst, Banksy and whoever wins the Turner prize mightn't be well known in the general population but they receive a fair amount of media coverage that filters down to people, and while they mightn't be aware of the individual artists as such they are aware of the high prices paid for the art. What I think people are objecting to is value (be it artistic or monetary) being attached to something they don't understand or aren't interested in.

Wibbs · 04-05-2010 11:20PM

I blame Duchamp, with a side order of the Dada movement, though he had his moments and the Dadaists contained some decent work. Problem being that the conceptual art brigade ran with it too far. Rejecting "craft" is all very well, but rejecting relevant viewpoints is quite another. Too often it has flown up its own jacksie, with the only art the explanation for the art. It reminds me how much modern orchestral music went up its own arse as did conceptual jazz. The latter two needed quality popular music forms to show them where they may have gone wrong(though many of same used as a basis some of the "conceptual" stuff as a kick off point).

Shouting words across a tesco tannoy is not art. If the words were by Keats it would be art only by dint of the fact that the words were Keats'. The method of transmission would just be hackneyed and obvious in its adolescence type thought. "ohhh Im making a statement against consumerism and subverting the conduits of its action". Yea love, get in line. Oh and no, non art isnt art either. That's old news too.

Much of the conceptual art(not all) is like the meanderings of a stoner caught up in his or her shock at thinking they're profound for the first time. Great for the stoner and fair play, but as philosophy? Not unless you happen to be passing the dutchie to Plato.

BTW I like Hirst. He's done some good work which did hit one in a visceral manner and basically made one think. I have a spot spot for weiner and emin. I particularly like Richard long, though not sure if he's in the pantheon of "conceptual" artists. He actually has a concept for a start. I like much of kapoors stuff too, though lately the well worn trail of "up my own jackise" is kicking off. WTF was he thinking with that utterly awkward design for the London games. It's bereft of either balance, reason or engineering. Hell I even can see the reasoning behind Yoko Ono :eek: She had her moments early on

. But much of the form I consider self generated bullshít perpetuated by and for pseuds.

Wibbs · 04-05-2010 11:45PM

medicman2009 wrote: »

My entry for the Turner prize this year will be: A sh1t on a plate with a knife and fork beside it, it will rest on top of a grave headstone.
My work will be titled - 'Eat sh1t and die.'

Better yet, shít on a plate over a few days, then sculpt a likeness of a dead relative* in the said colonic output and let it rot slowly.

Encase it in a glass case, better again get one of those antique domes reserved in the past for stuffed animals. That'll add the juxtaposition guff the critics will hop on. Dont discard the original contents either. Leave it "naked" beside the "work". The preserved dead with the dying and decay and mortality. Really good shít we're talking here. Sure to get a response.

Invite people to sniff the edge of case where it joins the base, so they dont just see the decay but will smell and feel sickened by it(bonus point). That covers the visceral angle right there. BTW Avoid whoppee cushion sounds over the PA. Step too far. Dont wanna be too obvious here....

Call it "Passing", the pseuds are so daft they'll either not spot the reference, or if they do, will consider you "ironic". If that strikes you as too obvious call it something utterly unrelated(in reality) but will make a connection(in their minds). "My coffee is cold" as an example to kick off your own creative juices.

Get an agent and at least one high powered patron. Bang his wife, or better yet if you're a bloke bang her husband. serious bonus points, especially if it hits the Times. Not the Mail in this case.

Be "interesting". This is similar to much of the vocal output of Houte couture clothes designers, so get a subscription to fashion TV and what not. It usually involves dressing unusually, speaking in a subdued timbre or very very loudly about nothing in particular, but making sure to drop in nonsensical jargon that leaves the reader or listener to "make up their own mind". Or act mad. Since Van Gogh the art world is shít scared of missing another tortured genius, so that may trigger desire. Though given most of the recognised great artist through history were actually pretty sane, happy and made a few quid too. A "horrified" Daily Mail article would seriously help. Makes you misunderstood among ladies who lunch and the rich who may be self conscious about their cultural status.

Sorted.

*If you can't sculpt get some talented oik doing a FAS course to do that bit for you. Dont namecheck him or her though. Leave the surgical gloves they used to sculpt your doings by the side of the case. "Ohh he's representing the failure of medical science/the interference of same"

Kold · 04-05-2010 11:51PM

I think a huge part is upon the public, the word art doesn't necessarily mean 'good'. Plenty of art is sh*t, just like literature/music/any other artform can be sh*t.

"Is it art?" is a pointless question, art merely means something created by an artist for the purpose of art. The question should be "Do I like this? Why do I like/dislike this?"

spinandscribble · 04-05-2010 11:55PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Much of the conceptual art(not all) is like the meanderings of a stoner caught up in his or her shock at thinking they're profound for the first time. Great for the stoner and fair play, but as philosophy? Not unless you happen to be passing the dutchie to Plato.

But you see thats because its the current time. Things like this have been said throughout time.
I read a interesting book recently on the idea of can art be taught, how its taught and how it could be taught. Basically there was a interesting section on how some people view modern art (and post modern ect ect) as pointless and useless and others will theres alot of crap to get through to the real gems. The unsettling fact for many artists is very few will be remembered or cared for in years to come. some names will stand out, not always the ones with the best PR but the ones who will have added something, not the million other people after them. Duchamp IS one of these people, love him or loathe him he did get in there and have his say and regardless of whether we like it he'll be the one in the history book.

BTW I like Hirst.

:eek: say it ain't so...:pac:

Wibbs · 04-05-2010 11:57PM

Kold wrote: »

I think a huge part is upon the public, the word art doesn't necessarily mean 'good'. Plenty of art is sh*t, just like literature/music/any other artform can be sh*t.

"Is it art?" is a pointless question, art merely means something created by an artist for the purpose of art. The question should be "Do I like this? Why do I like/dislike this?"

Yea.... all to easy an answer IMHO. OK if I dunno, Bob Dylan got píssed and fell on a drumkit and recorded it, would it be music? I mean he's clearly a musician and a good one at that and he's engaging with a musical instrument. As a musician he could point at the recording and go "it's music". So why not?

spinandscribble · 04-05-2010 11:58PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Better yet, shít on a plate over a few days, then sculpt a likeness of a dead relative* in the said colonic output and let it rot slowly.

Encase it in a glass case, better again get one of those antique domes reserved in the past for stuffed animals. That'll add the juxtaposition guff the critics will hop on. Dont discard the original contents either. Leave it "naked" beside the "work". The preserved dead with the dying and decay and mortality. Really good shít we're talking here. Sure to get a response.

Invite people to sniff the edge of case where it joins the base, so they dont just see the decay but will smell and feel sickened by it(bonus point). That covers the visceral angle right there. BTW Avoid whoppee cushion sounds over the PA. Step too far. Dont wanna be too obvious here....

Call it "Passing", the pseuds are so daft they'll either not spot the reference, or if they do, will consider you "ironic". If that strikes you as too obvious call it something utterly unrelated(in reality) but will make a connection(in their minds). "My coffee is cold" as an example to kick off your own creative juices.

Get an agent and at least one high powered patron. Bang his wife, or better yet if you're a bloke bang her husband. serious bonus points, especially if it hits the Times. Not the Mail in this case.

Be "interesting". This is similar to much of the vocal output of Houte couture clothes designers, so get a subscription to fashion TV and what not. It usually involves dressing unusually, speaking in a subdued timbre or very very loudly about nothing in particular, but making sure to drop in nonsensical jargon that leaves the reader or listener to "make up their own mind". Or act mad. Since Van Gogh the art world is shít scared of missing another tortured genius, so that may trigger desire. Though given most of the recognised great artist through history were actually pretty sane, happy and made a few quid too. A "horrified" Daily Mail article would seriously help. Makes you misunderstood among ladies who lunch and the rich who may be self conscious about their cultural status.

Sorted.

*If you can't sculpt get some talented oik doing a FAS course to do that bit for you. Dont namecheck him or her though. Leave the surgical gloves they used to sculpt your doings by the side of the case. "Ohh he's representing the failure of medical science/the interference of same"

if there was any justice this would be post of the day

spinandscribble · 04-05-2010 11:59PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea.... all to easy an answer IMHO. OK if I dunno, Bob Dylan got píssed and fell on a drumkit and recorded it, would it be music? I mean he's clearly a musician and a good one at that and he's engaging with a musical instrument. As a musician he he could point at the recording and go "it's music". So why not?

somewhere someones done that :P

I dunno. there seems to be more "rules" to music then "art".

brianthebard · 05-05-2010 12:01AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Better yet, shít on a plate over a few days, then sculpt a likeness of a dead relative* in the said colonic output and let it rot slowly.

Encase it in a glass case, better again get one of those antique domes reserved in the past for stuffed animals. That'll add the juxtaposition guff the critics will hop on. Dont discard the original contents either. Leave it "naked" beside the "work". The preserved dead with the dying and decay and mortality. Really good shít we're talking here. Sure to get a response.

Invite people to sniff the edge of case where it joins the base, so they dont just see the decay but will smell and feel sickened by it(bonus point). That covers the visceral angle right there. BTW Avoid whoppee cushion sounds over the PA. Step too far. Dont wanna be too obvious here....

Call it "Passing", the pseuds are so daft they'll either not spot the reference, or if they do, will consider you "ironic". If that strikes you as too obvious call it something utterly unrelated(in reality) but will make a connection(in their minds). "My coffee is cold" as an example to kick off your own creative juices.

Get an agent and at least one high powered patron. Bang his wife, or better yet if you're a bloke bang her husband. serious bonus points, especially if it hits the Times. Not the Mail in this case.

Be "interesting". This is similar to much of the vocal output of Houte couture clothes designers, so get a subscription to fashion TV and what not. It usually involves dressing unusually, speaking in a subdued timbre or very very loudly about nothing in particular, but making sure to drop in nonsensical jargon that leaves the reader or listener to "make up their own mind". Or act mad. Since Van Gogh the art world is shít scared of missing another tortured genius, so that may trigger desire. Though given most of the recognised great artist through history were actually pretty sane, happy and made a few quid too. A "horrified" Daily Mail article would seriously help. Makes you misunderstood among ladies who lunch and the rich who may be self conscious about their cultural status.

Sorted.

*If you can't sculpt get some talented oik doing a FAS course to do that bit for you. Dont namecheck him or her though. Leave the surgical gloves they used to sculpt your doings by the side of the case. "Ohh he's representing the failure of medical science/the interference of same"

I thought you said you liked Hirst?

Wibbs · 05-05-2010 12:08AM

spinandscribble wrote: »

But you see thats because its the current time. Things like this have been said throughout time.

Wellllll.... not really. It has been said at times, but not that much. Not nearly as much as today. Most people if you asked them in most centuries, "is this art?" would give you a pretty bloody definitive answer. Goya, Raphael, Mick O'Angelo, Rembrandt etc were considered "good". The impressionists would be about the first to get the people and the art world going WTF?. Even there they were pretty popular pretty quickly. Monet did not die a poor man. The aforementioned Van Gogh who I like, both pushed art forward and screwed the pooch at the same time. He kicked off the tortured artist, disliked or misunderstood genius meme, beloved of emo types since the beatniks and before. The fact he sold but one painting in his life has people thinking "jesus this new guy might be good and I might miss it :eek:". No one would have though that of Titian.

Duchamp IS one of these people, love him or loathe him he did get in there and have his say and regardless of whether we like it he'll be the one in the history book.

Oh he will. I have no doubt. More for his "fountain" than for his other works which IMHO have more validity. He'll be remembered like assassins, for infamy not so much his works.

:eek: say it ain't so...:pac:

'fraid so, though my skit on how to make conceptual art on the last page is a bit too close to the bone for some of his works. I like some of his paintings TBH. EDIT spotted by brianthebard

:D:D though HIrst must have had some effect as I wasnt thinking of him til I read back

Wibbs · 05-05-2010 12:14AM

spinandscribble wrote: »

somewhere someones done that :P

I dunno. there seems to be more "rules" to music then "art".

Cos the latter "artists" have forgotten their purpose more perhaps?

brianthebard · 05-05-2010 12:22AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Wellllll.... not really. It has been said at times, but not that much. Not nearly as much as today. Most people if you asked them in most centuries, "is this art?" would give you a pretty bloody definitive answer. Goya, Raphael, Mick O'Angelo, Rembrandt etc were considered "good". The impressionists would be about the first to get the people and the art world going WTF?. Even there they were pretty popular pretty quickly. Monet did not die a poor man. The aforementioned Van Gogh who I like, both pushed art forward and screwed the pooch at the same time. He kicked off the tortured artist, disliked or misunderstood genius meme, beloved of emo types since the beatniks and before. The fact he sold but one painting in his life has people thinking "jesus this new guy might be good and I might miss it :eek:". No one would have though that of Titian.

Have to disagree and agree here. This thread's been mainly about visual arts while flirting with the general idea of art. In that frame, Beethoven would be one of the first tortured artist types, although it was a feature of Romantic art in general (Wordsworth, Tennyson) and has thus become part of what is perceived to be artistic. The reason I mention this is to heighten the subjective nature of the whole thing.
Secondly, if you asked people in previous times 'is this art?' and included those names, a lot of people would say no. The fact that you included Goya is a massive warning signal in that regard. Many of his works were not well received. Even now I think people would have trouble looking at 'Saturn devouring his children'. In addition art has always been divided along class lines, and those who listened to high artistic music would not have considered peasant music art, and vice versa. Again this illustrates the subjective and changing nature of what is or isn't considered art.

Kold · 05-05-2010 12:35AM

I quite like Hirst too, wrote a paper on him earlier this year. Some of his stuff is hit and miss but he has a real love for art. I find him quite honest.

spinandscribble · 05-05-2010 01:36AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Wellllll.... not really. It has been said at times, but not that much. Not nearly as much as today. Most people if you asked them in most centuries, "is this art?" would give you a pretty bloody definitive answer. Goya, Raphael, Mick O'Angelo, Rembrandt etc were considered "good". The impressionists would be about the first to get the people and the art world going WTF?. Even there they were pretty popular pretty quickly. Monet did not die a poor man. The aforementioned Van Gogh who I like, both pushed art forward and screwed the pooch at the same time. He kicked off the tortured artist, disliked or misunderstood genius meme, beloved of emo types since the beatniks and before. The fact he sold but one painting in his life has people thinking "jesus this new guy might be good and I might miss it :eek:". No one would have though that of Titian.

The further back you go the more names drop as time goes on. I'm not saying there were or weren't artists pre post romanticism who were dismissed on the back of "being out their" but there are those we forget who were simply more of the same as their contemporaries, they didn't bring anything of value forward. thats what i mean, a lot of the "bad" art (art people dislike or sign at) right now is just the same old same old. someone's pooped on a plate, people are tired of shock tactics. I think the frustration lies more in art becoming vager. before people could agree on something being asethetically pleasing, fine art has gone elsewhere. I'm interested to live 50 years from now and see what people make of this period.

Oh he will. I have no doubt. More for his "fountain" than for his other works which IMHO have more validity. He'll be remembered like assassins, for infamy not so much his works.

+1, he's got some nice work its a pity he'll just be the "bad boy" of art, don't know if he'd mind it that way though.

sbsquarepants · 05-05-2010 10:52AM

Demi Happy Oats wrote: »

Oh by the way, you know who else didn't like modern art? NAZIS that's who

Ha ha, classic!

Just remembered there, a couple of years back the bbc done a big poll to find out who was the worlds most famous artist, dead or alive. The winner was Rolf Harris!!
Can ye giss what it iz yit:D

Art is a funny old game and just like any other human enterprise, there is utter s'hite and utter genius to be found, often side by side. The turner, in my opinion usually focuses on the former, purely to court controversy i would guess.

I have two words that sum up all that is great about art, in my very humble and not particularly knowledgeable opinion, for you fine people to mull over.
Jeff Coons

Kold · 08-05-2010 05:59PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I have two words that sum up all that is great about art, in my very humble and not particularly knowledgeable opinion, for you fine people to mull over.
Jeff Coons

Koons

The Turner Prize

Comments