Turner Prize � Art or Hoax?

[AB Asks]

A shed, that was a boat, then a shed again, and a white room with mood lighting in several different colours. No one can criticise the Turner Prize for a lack of variety in the art it showcases. But even the most enthusiastic art lover must struggle to see the merit in some of the entries in recent years. A short film about one man's travels through Texas is, to most people, a holiday film destined for showing to slightly bored family members at Christmas. To Turner Prize judges, however, this was seen as a winning entry back in 2004. Has the Turner Prize got any point?

[coco pops]

no.

[luna-tic]

I asked a similar question a while back but mine was referring more to the actual pieces of art themselves rather than a prize for it.
The only answer I could really give is:-
Art is whatever you want it to be.
Is it worthy of a prize?
That depends on how gullible the critics are.

[Champagne]

I couldn't possibly comment without studying each piece and understand where the artist was coming from. Only then do you get full insight which can often change your viewpoint.

Art is like wine. It's very much down to individual taste.

[paddywak]

Turner must be spinning in his grave over having his name associated with the some of rubbish that usually appears in the competion

[BillStickers]

I agree with Champagne's view.
These artists will have an established career in the contemporary art scene already, and have a large back catalogue of work, this will have been taken into consideration by the judging panel and the decision to nominate them as finalists includes a review of work to date.
The Turner Prize will usually incorporate conceptual, or ideas-based artists, as that is largely where the art scene is now, so where you might think that some room painted white with lights going on and off is not your idea of artistic talent, then try to see the work in context.
If it's still not your idea of what art is, then it's like Champagne says, down to your individual taste.

[moppettshow]

From a personal point of view, if I see something in a gallery and think 'I could do that', then it's not art, it's just crap. The room with the light bulb turning on and off... if I sat at a piano and just kept hitting middle C every couple of seconds, I would not expect to be taken seriously as a musician.
Maybe I 'just don't get it'...

[heathfield]

The whole point of art is to produce an emotional response in the observer. Obviously the Turner Prize exhibits do this, so they're art. Mostly, my response is to turn away!

[flip-flop]

It is the Emporor's New Clothes all over again. Thumbing a piece of blu-tac to a wall is not art, and anyone attempting to argue that it is is a gullible idiot.

[saxy_jag]

I remember an Arts Admin seminar I went to at uni. One of my fellow students delivered a paper entitled, 'Modern Art - Child's Play?' Part of the presentation involved showing slides of artwork by his own wife, mixed in with that of people such as Terry Frost. We were invited to state whether we thought it was 'genuine' or not. One particular piece, even the lecturer (a professor of art history) couldn't decide. We got on to the topic of value, and the prof said, "Well, if it was a Terry Frost, it would be worth a lot of money indeed".

So I guess if you have the right credentials then it's quality art, otherwise it's phone pad doodling.

[jenstar]

I could have written the Ring Cycle. It's only a bunch of notes. Bloody German ******* got there first.