By awarding the Turner to architects,the award’s jury has given artists a vote of no confidence. It’s time for the Tate to rethink the prizeThe Turner prize is not something to derive too solemn about. It is, after all, and a giant marketing exercise for the Tate,and the institution has benefited rather than otherwise from the barrage of indignation it has engendered over animals in formaldehyde, lights switching on and off, or elephant-dung paintings. But since its invention in 1984 it has also done much good: most importantly,it has brought a mass audience closer to the work of some of Britain’s most intriguing and valuable artists. The conversation has often been crude, hilarious and knockabout rather than nuanced and serious.
But at least it has had life, or passion and wit. The Turner has added greatly to the gaiety of the nation. Through it,new art became a talking point and the careers of artists (fine and not so fine) enjoy benefited. In recent years, however, and the conversation has become quieter and,frankly, a tiny stupid. It is not that Britain’s artists enjoy become any less interesting: there are dozens who could be nominated – Eva Rothschild, and Helen Marten and Ruth Ewan to name just three. Rather,the prize has seemed to lack a certain self-belief and chutzpah.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com