The Turner Prize

[number8]

Emperors New Clothes or Wonderful works of art? Personally, very much the former. Utter rubbish (quite literally in Tracey Emin's case) - Yes, it's a subjective subject, but I have yet to hear an argument to convince me that blu-tac pressed onto a wall is art. It is not. Pretentious rubbish.

[geofbob]

I think the confustion arises because doubters expect all art to be good art, or art that they like. But in just the same way that you may consider the Impressionists to be better artists than the Pre-Raphaelites (or vice versa), or prefer Matisse to Picasso (or vice versa) - but would accept that all their works are art - then why can't you accept that Martin Creed's minimalism (such as his piece of blu-tac carefully positioned on a wall) is art, but not art that you particularly like, or says anything to you, or would pay good money for. I didn't think Grayson Perry's pots were the best thing in this year's Turner Prize; and would have preferred Willie Doherty to have won; but Perry's work is certainly art - or else what is it?

[andy hughes]

Being very much a memboer of the 'I don't know art, but i know what I like' school of thought, i tend to stay out of arguments about art ... come to that, i tend to stay out of art galleries! I do feel that the Turner Prize is an anual excuse for everyone to laugh at point at the worst pretentions that are paraded before us, and that givea rt a bad name, even for people who would probably like quite a lot of art if it was presented to them properly. the Turner Prize seems to be a club for people who simultaneously delight in patting each other on the back and remarking how clever they are, while looking down from a great height on anyone who disagrees with their perception of what is good art. Shame really.

[Janetex]

Art is like wine, if you like it, it's good. I dislike pretentious gits who intimidate others, everybody's tastes should be respected.

[number8]

?????????????

[Janetex]

Aw, I wasn't meaning you at all, although I see now that it looks that way. AND I admit that I did shake my head at the Art Gallery once on seeing that some wall tiles placed on the floor had won a prize.

[number8]

Thank you. Am probably showing my age here, but does anybody remember Game for a Laugh on TV, early 80's I think. In one episode they gave a load of kids large blank canvasses on the floor and told them to do what they liked, and this included riding bycycles over them with the tyres caked in paint and just generally throwing paint on them. They then hung them in a gallery and invited "the great and the good" along and secretly filmed them. The comments were brilliant - picassoesque this Edvard Munchesque that (I' m paraphrasing). For me that just summed how prententious and gullible people can be about contemporary art.

[Hamish]

I have discussed with my wife on many ocaations the question of 'what is art?', or 'How can you tell if something is art and something else not?'.

It's easy to define it as something that is appreciated as art, but thats like defineing Chemsitry as making new chemicals, yet we all do this every day but are not considered chemists.

I think that it can be define as a creative work which if some part were changed or removed it would cease to have the same inpact. This arose after seening a room full of decorating equipment as an installation. I could have moved anything in the room and it would have been the same, yet take the lobster from Dallis phone and it is a very different kettle of fish (!).

This has had to make me admit that somethings I feel are conning me are actually art.

Hamish

[Squirrel]

As a rule I consider a painting / drawing to be a work of art if I like it and if only a talented artist could have created it.

Example: blue square on white canvas: not art. A badger could draw that.

Front cover of HP and the Goblet of Fire: artistic.

[Hamish]

Squirrel, Isn;t that a little subjective? What if someone else appreciates a series of squares as art? Is only what you appreciate as art art?

Surly art also goes beyond just the piece we see. Do you regard a book as good simply because it has an easy to follow story? Surly that would be a very simplistic view that perhaps a peson new to reading would take. Someone who take interest in literature not only looks at the story but also the style it's written in, the charater depth, the context and what the author is trying to portray. Similarly there is more to art than just looking at a picture. A simple title has often opened up my understnading of a piece.

I have to confess that some work leaves me lost and wondering what the artist is up to, but does that make it cease to be art, or just define it as bad/poor art?

Thanks, Hamish

[gazzawazza]

Definitely Emperor's new clothes. I haven't seen the blue-tac on the wall but I think I can guess what it looks like... and before all you pretentious art critics take to your keyboards, please save your breath. On second thoughts, wake up and see you've been conned and laughed at by the emperor's new clothesists.