The Turner Prize for art what do you think?

Question

The two pickled cows entitled "Mother and child devided", The "Unmade Bed". Are these entrants for the prize seeking celebrity or even "The Emporor's New Clothes?"

Answer 1

My concept of art is a watercolour landscape painted with jewel-like colours, or a portrait which captures the essence of the sitter.

I do like abstract paintings but they have to have some quality which makes me want to look at them over & over again.

I can't be doing with unmade beds. I have one of my own!

Answer 2

Please don't forget that Turner himself was thought of as quite weird in his time. Some people could not comprehend what he was painting. There are many market niches for art, so the Turner prize constitutes the contemporary art market with all its contradictions, as the rascal modernist innovators (dada) wanted to destroy art Or declare everyone was/is an artist. OK, what is art? How come everyone rags about Hirst/Emin but what about other previous winners, f.e. Rachel Whiteread?

Answer 3

I would like to take it seriously, but cannot. I'm a Friend of the Royal Academy and always go to the Summer Exhibition and other Exhibitions, there is some great new work these days - and established artists like Anthony Green continue to impress, but the Turner Prize is just for the tabloids - I ignore it, personally.

Answer 4

What are you asking, that Damien Hirst or Tracy Emin are just fakes and that the art world is fooled into thinking it's serious art? If so, then yes, I cannot stand either so called artists, and i am not narrow minded about modern art, it's just that i cannot consider anyone seriously who uses an unmade bed with the detritus around it as in any way serious.

Answer 5

the turner prize attracts a huge amount of publicity. this is what an art prize is supposed to do: get people thinking about art; get people talking about art.

personally i think damien hirst is a great artist, and tracy emin is an utter charlatan. but then i can defend both of these positions. i can respect other people with other ideas who can justify what they say, but: 'i don't know much about art but i know what i like.' isn't an argument; it is just bigotry.

the first time i saw a roy lichtenstein it took my breath away. back then (the mid 1960s) the art establishment was full of people eager to shout down lichtenstein as a derivative and pointless fakir.

they were wrong. i was right.

Answer 6

It's a trick. Some wag in the artworld decided to undemine the credibility of modern art by promoting these artists (and others like them) as the best of the best modern art has to offer, and could get away with it because Andy Warhol got away with it 30 years previously. So now we are forced to grin and agree with the critics who themselves are forced to say how profound these artists are, in order to preserve their own precarious careers.
Honestly, if there was more funding available people would be more secure in their careers andcould go out on a limb and say that this stuff is absolute crap.

Answer 7

I think Turner would indeed turn in his grave if he saw what was offered for the Prize given in his name, even if his own paintings in later years all disappeared into fog.
Who are we to say what is good art it would be very sad if there was no choice.

Answer 8

It's all about expectations of what you except to see when you visit an art gallery, arguably all started by Marcel Duchamp's urinal entitled 'fountain' exhibited in the early 1900's.

Answer 9

Was just watching that - I think they are vile, to be honest. Not what I call art!

Answer 10

My bathroom light keeps going on and of. Perhaps Ishould have entered that. ART HMMMMMMPPPPPPPHHHHHHHHHHHHHH