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.

That's a bit disingenuous though, he made the models used to cast the statues. It's not like he couldn't sculpt or wasn't involved in the material creation of the works. And no, I don't think that is the same as someone just saying what they want something t o look like.

What I find interesting and I’m not sure it really matters, but how detailed are Jasleen Kaur’s instructions to have the doily made. Did she design the doily or just say to them I want a doily this big and left them to it. Having googled it, it was easy to find who made it and it took the person crocheting 3 months to make it.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/24278504.artwork-brought-life-blackburn-woman-win-turner-prize/#

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!*

Of course they get paid!
Do they get credited?
I couldn't tell you the name of the person/people who did the crochet work. That is took a great skill and talent to make, imo.

I think in this case it was easier to find the person who made it, as the work was shown in the Turner Prize. Otherwise I guess it would be a lot harder.

Funnily enough there are similar conversations going on about the recent Nobel prizes in physics and chemistry (is it physics? is it chemistry?), both of which were given for advances in AI.

He made the clay models used to make the plaster casts (made by other people) used to cast the bronzes (made by a foundry) if we’re talking about bronzes, yes. The marbles were carved by an entirely different set of skilled studio assistants, some of them sculptors in their own right., like Antoine Bourdelle.

But what I’m saying is that he had a very modern factory-style production line going on, and, as many of his big commissions were never vast in bronze in his lifetime, and the Musée Rodin has been casting posthumous bronzes since his death, some of the best-known Rodins of today not only not ever even touched by him, they were never seen by him, but made decades after his death.

Look! Look! The Emperor is naked!

Well, the woman who made it says, in that article that ‘All I had was Jasleen’s vision and a picture of a six-inch doily that was on a table’ — she says she crocheted by eye, making up the pattern as she went along, and went to her local pub after hours periodically so she could spread out the doily and look at it properly on the flat. She also says that it’s been a more successful ad for her crochet classes than her own business page, and she’s always fully booked, so I suppose that as well as being paid, it’s been good publicity.

I don't think it matters a jot whether the works are physically made by the artist or not. 'Workshop of...' has been a thing since the beginning of western art. The Turner's conceptual art - it's the ideas and how they are set forth that matters.
About the Turner though - Waldemar Januszczak in the Sunday Times and Laura Cumming in the Observer have both been consistently scathing and dismissive about recent Turner Prize efforts, so it's not just the unschooled plebs being thick and uncultured. Much of the stuff is difficult to justify. Having said that, I will go and have a look.
I remember Ai Weiwei being mocked not many years ago - the Sunflower Seed installation. I just went to an exhibition of his in Bologna - amongst other things a wall-sized Leonardo 'Last Supper' done in Lego with Ai Weiwei as Judas. I doubt if he was there pressing tiny bricks into the picture, but he had applied his highly original brain. I loved it.

This year the Turner prize seems to have gotten a really bad panning. Each artist has had bad press with Jasleen Kaur receiving the most positive to the most scathing. There’s not a clear winner. Does that mean it’s a weak year?

I went this afternoon.

Really enjoyed it. A series of works by Pio Abad was extraordinary, I think. Loved Claudette Jones’ painting. I didn’t like the Delaine le Bas installation at all, but that’s OK.

The Jasleen Kaur installation really can’t be judged or discussed on the basis of the doily on car alone. Wasn’t convinced by the overall quality of her work but having been in so many Indian sub continent diaspora homes with doilies covering everything possible I enjoyed the Red Ford car, object of pride and in Glasgow covered likewise. Loved the many cross cultural references. The photos encased in an Irn Bru glaze, the beautiful picture of the Sikh farmers standing in solidarity with the kneeling Muslim farmers.

I have seen a lot of work exploring diaspora, colonisation , multi-cultural layering , and this didn’t come close to the work of Chris Ofili, Yinka Shobinare, Zarina Bimji (whose beautiful photos and films were shortlisted a while ago) or Zineb Sedira, whose exhibition at the Whitechapel this year should have been a contender, IMO.

But I am no expert, just an ordinary interested gallery - goer.

Well, a work of art must have taken some effort - even if it was throwing paint pots about a la J. Pollock (DD loves his stuff, I think it looks like the paint and spatter effect that was done on hospital etc walls in the 50s, but there you go!). It doesn't have to say something, IMO, but sometimes it does, and sometimes it says something the author did not intend e.g. various depictions of Susannah and the Elders. It could be my paint-spattered wooden step ladder, if I had intentionally arranged for the object to look like that - and possibly added spider plants (unfortunately DSS has decided the bloody thing is usefu!) Art is not in the eye of the beholder, but if the beholder decides it's not art (or not their sort of art) then it ain't gonna sell - which is the actual raison d'etre of most art, even dead sharks.

I want to know how you get the money and the space and the materials to make these modern works in the first place.

I have some incredible (I think!) ideas.

I do not have the cash, the time nor the space to produce them, nor in some cases the physical ability, I would need help.

So really this is limited to those with the right connections, the access to money and space, the freedom to not have to earn a living doing anything else.

And that makes it rather exclusive and elite I reckon, and it annoys me.

I stick to doing what I can do, but given the constraints, what I can do is never going to attract any sort of financial backer who wants to fling cash at me to play with my ideas, no matter how good it is (and it is moderately good).

Your definition of a work of art is that it...

1. must have taken some effort.
2. it doesn't have to say something, but sometimes it does.

🤔The work in question took some effort to assemble. It also has intended meaning. So, it is art after all.

The bit where you say "or not their sort of art" is getting closer to a useful approach. What I mean by that is that it's better (IMO) to accept that "art" is whatever the artist says it is, and then we can decide whether it's 'good art' or 'bad art'. Simply dismissing it as "not art" (or total bollocks) isn't a particularly thoughtful response.

Well, I would agree that if the artist says it's art then it's art. Good, bad or total bollocks is up to the viewer?
If a lot of people decide it's total bollocks, it may still be art, but the artist is going to spend a lot of time patching up holes in their garret - possibly with art.
Some people thought the Impressionists were total bollocks, and some others thought this of the Pre-Raphaelites. Ideas change. Sometimes. I suspect we all agree that Fra Angelico's Annunciation is art and not bollocks.

I think that is it, there has been better more complex work exploring diaspora.

Even though Pio Abad research is fascinating and in depth I’m not sure it translates into a visual language. Claudette work is good, but quite straightforward and traditional. In Jasleen, by simply throwing lots of symbol together that reference her background with minimal thought leaves me feeling confused. I think Delaine’s work maybe didn’t work well in the space. Everyone will have a different take.

I also wonder hasn’t this all been done before

I agree. Would a plastic-wrapped sofa with a doily over it be art? I have sat on many such in family homes - terribly slippery! Just throwing together cultural symbols isn't necessarily saying anything about a culture.

Wow lots of opinions on the artists instillation. I am the lady that crochet the doily and your right 3 months 58 balls of yarn all done by eye no pattern. The interest and thought provoking comments that has been posted are amazing....

I don’t know how to judge art really. But Claudette Johnson's paintings moved me to tears. I found Pio Abad's work interesting and intricate. I wasn't moved by Kaur and I didn't get anything from Le Bas at all. I just didn't get it.

@crochetcrazycreations - wow - I'm afraid that your skill was the only thing that spoke to me in the entire of Jasleen Kaur's installation. I'm afraid I'm still disappointed that it won.

I was surprised Jasleen won, but it’s all political. It’s another box ticked.

See, I actually quite enjoyed Tracey Emin 's Unmade Bed installation back in the late 90s because of the sheer cheek of it. I admired her chutzpah. But these "ironic" TP exhibits are getting a bit old now. I think Tracey Emin thought of something really funny, and a big fuck you to the whole concept of the seriousness with which modern art takes itself the concept has become a bit old now. I want to see proper art again.

I assumed it to mean that if you leave something lying around for long enough, your old granny will put an antimacassar on it.

It's not art. It's 'things you look at'. 'Oooh that's interesting'.

When I was at art school we had our end of course show and the lecturers chose our pieces.

One of mine was an absolute piss-take made when I was really rushed for time to get a project in on time. It was absolutely pissing it down and I didn't want to go to the art shop for supplies so I threw something together quickly. It really was a joke and I was annoyed he'd chosen that series of pieces (I assumed it was him trying to embarrass me) .

I sat listening to visitors try to analyse the work and some were quite serious about the messages and meaning in it.

I also make metalwork and sometimes it's your experiments and little disasters that people like best (again asking what your inspiration/story was for the piece).

Eye of the beholder and all that.

I agree with the comment about Tracey Emins bed. There was something more powerful about it. I think this year Jasleen will become known for her acceptance speech supporting Palestine, and as an activist than her work.