The Turner Prize is a funny old game

I take the same stance as Terry Wogan. Conceptual and performance art leave me cold. I know that the likes of Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst have solid backgrounds in art and can produce conventional and aesthetically pleasing paintings and sculptures, but I don't understand why we should follow like sheep when they churn out some of the contraversial contributions they have submitted to the Turner judges. It brings in the tourists, though

A light, amusing article.

As far as 'art' (I suppose one could go all semantic on that word) is concerned, I like what I like, regardless of whether it is conceptual, performance or conventional. One of the things that I admire about artists is that they put it out there, and frequently run the risk of ridicule and disapproval.

And of course, there's always bonkers amounts of money sloshing around in the art world, so no wonder the fringe element might want to have a bit of it - and the limelight, as well.

I know someone who frames and sells what is considered abstract work, but in actual fact the paintings are a series of 'brush cleanings'. Mount it, frame it and hey presto - art! I do think there is a bit of p*ss taking there.

I forgot to mention that his 'proper' work is beautiful and skillful.

We have been to see several of the Turner Prize exhibitions over the years and none of the exhibits have all been worthy of space at the Tate or anywhere else.
I'm not a Luddite - we loved the latest Hockney but I am thinking of entering for the Turner.

Hubertbear I don't think Luddites commented much on art. What you are probably not is a philistine. Does anybody know why Philistines are portrayed as lacking in culture?

Just reviving this thread to say what I think about this year's Turner Prize nominees and particularly this one:

'Sehgal doesn’t create objects. He involves us in confrontational situations over at the gallery. People run at you and begin questioning your motives, your aspirations. They pursue you up stairs. They treat you as the object of seriously unserious critical attention.'

I confess to being mystified as to how this and the other works described qualify as 'art'.

Some years ago DD and I strayed into an exhibition at the Tate Gallery of what looked like bookcases made from clear acrylic sheet. We were then given a sheet of paper explaining what message the artist was conveying through these works.

DD looked at the 'sculptures, read the sheet and said. 'If you have to explain to people in writing what the work of art is all about because it conveys nothing on its own then it is the piece of paper that is the work of art not the painting/sculpture that has been made'.

I have never had any reason to disagree with this. I find that there is much abstract sculpture and art, like the work of Henry Moore that has an inherent beauty in its shape, colour, place in the landscape, so no piece of paper is necessary, but most modern art. If art has to be explained it isn't art.

Generally speaking, I don't like conceptual art. I accept that anything can be described as art and if people are happy to go to an exhibition of blank canvases, a broken milk bottle, etc., etc., they are very welcome to do so.

My own view of what constitutes "art" is not necessarily that it is pleasing to the eye or that it appeals to everybody but that it has required some degree of skill and training to produce it. Sticking two bricks on the floor next to a bucket does not, to my mind, meet that criteria.

I propose entering the outpourings of this forum for the Tate. The material ranges from the monumental to the microscopic. Whilst there is no physicality this is of no consequence to the idea. It is not a narrative or an exploration but an expiation. The final constructions are composites, a synthesis of of intuition and the categories. The 'making' is a method and instrument to contemplate and gaze on 'the idea'. The text indeed 'plays' itself and in playing directs us to contemplate distance and profundity. It is beyond our personal locus, or indeed logos.

'Pseuds' Corner is one of my favourite bits of Private Eye.

You mean I haven't explained MiceElf? [grin{

You'd be on a winner with that one, MiceElf, largely because nobody would be able to understand your explanation!

Anno, I should be interested in your deconstruction of, and commentry on, the initial text.

If you were one of the judges we could split the proceeds.

MiceElf Thank you, I am suitably confused, but far too embarrassed to admit it

Definitely beyond our personal something. MiceElf

Plenty of transcendental juxtapositions of the inspirational and the prosaic though, shot through with angst and ecstacy but grounded in state-of-the-art realism.

Perhaps it is beyond our Ken.

Now, now Elegran! None of that sexist talk on here....

b*** the Turner prize. I've just got Mice Elf because she spelled it out...am I the thickest person on earth ( not p.c I know, but ok if it's about mice elf )

Our Ken just came by. He says it is way beyond him.

Mice Elf is very clever I had not twigged that until Greatnan mentioned it.

That's all right then.

. I am a bear of very little brain!

On the subject of Turner, did anyone watch the programme on BBC last Friday about JMW himself? Found it fascinating and realised how little I knew about both the artist and his work, even though it is so familiar. Want to go and see more of his paintings now [was never a fan of them].

Galen Say it out loud to yourself " "Mice Elf* says I am *Mice Elf" "

Or was it Our Ken who confused you?

The whole of GRANSNET I think. I exhausted myself at the weekend with my ailing family visiting, worked all day today and like fool agreed to do tomorrow as a favour as well as Wednesday and Thursday!

What a nice thing it is to be retired!