Tbe Turner prize. Help me understand

[notacooldad]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/turner-prize-tate-britain-artist-rosie-cooper-benin-bronzes-b2533805.html

There is a nomination for a car covered in a crochet doily.
I could maybe understand the creativity if the artist had crochet it herself but she got someone else to do it while she takes the credit.
I know I'm going to sound like a complete idiot but me and my friends were talking about it last night but what is the point, if the artist hasn't made it themselves.

It’s conceptual art. It’s not meant to be decorating your living room.

I get the suspicion - people don’t want to feel fooled, like The Emperor’s New Clothes, but you can’t get something out of it if you don’t give the benefit of the doubt and go with an open mind.

If you go with an open mind and don’t feel or think anything, then, fair enough, you probably think it’s crap, but the fact that the OP was annoyed about the crocheters being unaccredited is perhaps bang on the money of what the artist was trying to present about the unrecognised people working in textiles.

I think this piece of work is a good example of the difference engaging with work makes

Modern art is just the skill of networking with the right people

Except it’s not a new idea. Artists like Raphael, Verocchio, Botticelli, Rubens etc operated huge studios with apprentice-students who did the donkeywork painting, sometimes entire canvases, to the master’s design. Rodin never carved a single one of his famous marbles like The Kiss or The Thinker — he just made the clay models and they were scaled up and carved or cast by his assistants/foundries, and he signed them. He had dozens of assistants. It wasn’t new when Warhol or Damien Hirst was doing it.

I’m enjoying reading how the exhibition comes across in life. Quite fancy having a look at it now. But also comparing to people like this completely self-taught 16 year old girl who just blows me away!
https://www.instagram.com/ruby_mitcham?igsh=dnR5aHJ5ZWRmc29k
We really should support talented young people like this as they are struggling to get in to art schools which now only value concepts and sometimes penalise for skill! I imagine it will come full circle again at some point.

I don't think the running of studios in the past , which was part of an apprenticeship scheme among many things, and where the artist was in fact the master craftsman, was actually all that similar to people who can't do whatever it is at a high level paying someone who can.

Sometimes I like something until I read the artist's blurb. I then walk away thinking they're a pretentious arsehole.

Maybe this is why I liked two of the Turner nominees and not the others. For me the two who were demonstrating clear artistic skill (Pio Abad and Claudette Johnston) were far ore interesting both visually and intellectually than the two whose exhibits felt very pretentious and emperor's new clothes. Basically talent will out I guess....

Just what I was going to say!

I dare say the early Victorian equivalent of ‘bollocks’ would feature - though I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they used that quaint word then, too.

IIRC, the ancient Greeks didn’t have a particular word for artistic ability. They just used the word meaning ‘skill’.

To some of us, anything purporting to be art, ought to look as if some sort of skill was involved - whether it calls itself conceptual art or not.

First time quoting myself <ego> but everything in this installation is all hand carved and hand painted by the artists.

I walked past it in the gallery when I saw it the first time.

Having seen the show, overall I don’t think it’s that strong. I wanted to like Delaine Le Bas as her work seemed very personal to her. Jasleen Kaur’s work left me cold. Claudette was strong. The research behind Pio Abad’s work was interesting.

I think it’s ok not to make the work, but there should be more thought or reason why this is with that. I think it’s hard to judge what makes a good work.

Nobody understands the rationale behind awarding the Turner Prize, its purpose is to raise the blood pressure of those of us who 'are not artists. You couldn't possibly understand'. As said by Sir Nicolas Serota, at the time, Director of the Tate. It irritated me A Lot.

I recently saw a post on Instagram from Manchester Art Gallery, it was to highlight a recent event/ exhibition there.
It made me laugh and feel depressed in equal measure (the middle aged awkward audience watching the young people writhing) and to me it represents everything that's wrong with the current direction of supposedly accessible art galleries.

To me it's alienating and the opposite of inclusive or god forbid skilled and talented.
Self indulgent wankery at its finest.

www.instagram.com/reel/DA2j1PmSwWS/?igsh=cnZteWR2NGx0bTV3

I suppose this is the problem with with prioritising EDI (initiatives derived from political idealism) over art. The woman in the white T shirt covering herself in what looked like blood could have been something quite thoughtful or thought-provoking, but it’s just cheapened by the kind of imperialist urge to ‘queer’, lecture and overpower others.

The talk of an art gallery ‘takeover’ - as though they intend to shake up the stuffy establishment- comes across as a juvenile. People have been doing weird and shocking stuff in art galleries for a long time now, and it all looked pretty safe and well-trodden to me.

@CherryBlossomArt you are so right and I doubt they are reaching their intended demographic (whoever that is) it's just the same enthusiastic middle class attendees or staff by the looks of it.

Utter bollocks as is much of modern 'art'. It is no doubt accompanied by some lengthy written description using the words 'symbolic, represents, journey, angst' etc etc

I agree @CherryBlossomArt. It does seem forced. Galleries requirement to get in new audiences and with this work maybe trying to get a younger audience in and trying to be relevant doesn’t often equate to good work.

Well, Rodin couldn’t carve. The only time he touched any of the marbles of The Kiss or The Thinker was to carve his signature on them. Like I said, it’s not new.

How do you enter the turner prize? Is it a case of who you know? Because I could genuinely do something like this, but no one would ever give a shit as I’m not ‘known’.

I did modern art paintings for a few years, just for fun, so I’m not taking the piss.

You don’t enter, no. A panel of judges goes around art shows by British artists for a year (it used to stipulate British artists of under 50, but now there are no age restrictions), and choose six nominations each, then hammer out a shortlist. The prize is for a particular show, not a body of work.

I think it’s also interesting and not clear how the 4 judges get selected

Going back to the crochet doilly. Does the person/people get paid? Are they credited? If not what have they got to gain from it, is there a side benefit for them.
I'm rather fascinated by the process now!

What qualifies you to decide if something is or isn't art? Please provide your definition of "art".

Of course they get paid! As all the people who produce work for artists do. The seamstress who sewed Louise Bourgeois’s later fabric sculptures. The Belgian workshop that makes Grayson Perry’s tapestries, which is also acknowledged. The printmaker who helped Mary Cassatt make her prints (and whose name appears on each final edition with hers). The lighting technician who made Tracey Emin’s light installation at St Pancras.