The Turner Prize
Alison A Raimes
http://www.tate.org.uk/london/exhibitions/turnerprize99/index.htm
Tracey Emin continues to play out her role of *as bad as they get* girl,
abandoning any aesthetic sensibility even though she is now 36 and a
very good artist before she took on her marketing ploy of sensation
seeker. The room her work was in was crowded with young artists
frantically taking notes in their sketch books and no doubt planning to
fly back to school and recreate the bed scene
http://www.tate.org.uk/london/exhibitions/turnerprize99/emin.htm
Steve Pippins photographs through a washing machine window left me
shrugging and bored.
http://www.tate.org.uk/london/exhibitions/turnerprize99/pippin.htm
Steve McQueen's videos have never given me much enjoyment in the past,
but in view of my search for a contemporary sublime experience I was
willing to give them the time they deserved. Steve stands in front of a
wooden hut facing the camera and the side suddenly falls towards him. He
is positioned so that the window on the side of the hut falls over him
and as the cloud of dust engulfs him he doesn't so much as flinch. The
fall is recorded from several positions and replayed at various speeds.
I tired to imagine what it would be like to be standing where he was -
knowing the danger of the operation going wrong - like a knife throwers
assistant who has confidence in what he is doing but always that sense
of pleasure in the danger of it. In the next room there was a tape
recorder lying in the grass and the broken tape flapping constantly as
the turns produced o sound. Suddenly it rose, a balloon attached to it
carried it off into the sky. Slowly it became a blur - part of the blue
sky, almost impossible to see but because the eye knew it was there the
recording in the mind remained. Those who walked in at this stage asked
if we were waiting for the video to start, unable to register the
balloon - and I have to add, ruining the experience of being mesmerised
by the floating away of an object into the unknown.
http://www.tate.org.uk/london/exhibitions/turnerprize99/mcqueen.htm
The Wilson twins will remain, for me, the strong winners whatever the
outcome, which of course, is weighed heavily in Emin's direction. Huge
photographs of subway tunnels disappearing around a corner to where ?
The tunnel a shining and pristine clean environment unlike the ones we
are familiar with in the underground's of our busy cities. In the next
room four huge projections of a video - the tunnel again and a casino.
The viewer walks through the middle - two screens set at right angles to
each other on either side of the room and is surrounded by the images.
They rush across the scene, close ups of roulette wheels and hands
dealing cards - repetitive images, hypnotizing the viewer.
http://www.tate.org.uk/london/exhibitions/turnerprize99/wilsons.htm
I thought there was more to this year's shows than some of the past
ones. However there is a sadness that the results are generally
politically inclined towards not, as the competitions is intended, to
award the young British artist who has contributed most to British art
during the past twelve months, but more towards the publicity of the
Tate gallery as supporters of cutting edge art - whatever that may be.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote:
(snip)
:The Wilson twins will remain, for me, the strong winners whatever the
:outcome, which of course, is weighed heavily in Emin's direction. Huge
:photographs of subway tunnels disappearing around a corner to where ?
:The tunnel a shining and pristine clean environment unlike the ones we
:are familiar with in the underground's of our busy cities. In the next
:room four huge projections of a video - the tunnel again and a casino.
:The viewer walks through the middle - two screens set at right angles to
:each other on either side of the room and is surrounded by the images.
:They rush across the scene, close ups of roulette wheels and hands
:dealing cards - repetitive images, hypnotizing the viewer.
:http://www.tate.org.uk/london/exhibitions/turnerprize99/wilsons.htm
Alison,
Good and informative post. Thanks for the references. The Wilson twins are
who I was trying to think about several months ago and I agree that there
work is quite intriguing. I've seen them mentioned here in the USA quite
frequently and feel that of the young Brits making names for themselves,
these two have a bit more substance than the rest combined.
:I thought there was more to this year's shows than some of the past
:ones. However there is a sadness that the results are generally
:politically inclined towards not, as the competitions is intended, to
:award the young British artist who has contributed most to British art
:during the past twelve months, but more towards the publicity of the
:Tate gallery as supporters of cutting edge art - whatever that may be.
I think that happens in most countries. Publicity = fame for the artist =
best art (?) How long has it been like that? BUT, the fame that only lasts
for a year or two won't sustain the artist's name and fame alone is hard to
sustain. Then again, it sure gives one's carreer a boost and that can't
hurt. As Mattison says "Press is press"...
Kay
:Alison
:ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
tomi...@hotmail.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Leigh Kimmel
tomi...@hotmail.com writes:
> sounds like SHAME for the name of Turner imo. =(
>
My feelings too -- when I see some of the stuff done by artists up for
the Turner Prize, I get this intense vision of him sitting somewhere in
Elysium, shaking his head and regretting that he ever endowed that
prize. That or being absolutely infuriated, I'm not sure which.
--
One terrified boy and the girl who would save him.
"Claws of Vengeance" on sale now
http://www.alexlit.com/ Alexandria Digital Literature
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@globaleyes.net
http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel!
Check out my bookstore http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/bookstore/
Alison A Raimes
<kim...@mail.globaleyes.net.?> writes
>In article <810ci3$9il$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>tomi...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> sounds like SHAME for the name of Turner imo. =(
>>
>My feelings too -- when I see some of the stuff done by artists up for
>the Turner Prize, I get this intense vision of him sitting somewhere in
>Elysium, shaking his head and regretting that he ever endowed that
>prize. That or being absolutely infuriated, I'm not sure which.
Just out of curiosity - have you visited the show and seen the work ? I
just had a long Email from someone on alt.philosophy.debate about the
Sensation show - he said he wanted to be shocked by the show and was
disappointed ...... blah, blah, blah ....... and then he suddenly
revealed that he had seen the work - all of it apparently, via the
Internet. I won't bother responding to him.
As humans we make all sorts of judgements based on unsubstantiated
evidence and pass it onto the world for others to make more judgements.
As artists we have an obligation to remain open minded and to *look* and
*think* about what we are seeing before passing on that information.
Turner would most likely have loved this award - why would you say he
wouldn't ? It is awarded to encourage the career of the British artists
who has contributed most to British art during the last twelve months.
In his own time Turner suffered a great deal of criticism for his work -
he was, after all, the first true abstract painter - and the most avant
garde artist of the nineteenth century - he deplored the structure of
the academy and detested the bourgeoisie. He was also brash and
confident and all the things that the young British artists are today.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
John Haber
>Just out of curiosity - have you visited the show and seen the work ? I
>just had a long Email from someone on alt.philosophy.debate about the
>Sensation show - he said he wanted to be shocked by the show and was
>disappointed ...... blah, blah, blah ....... and then he suddenly
>revealed that he had seen the work - all of it apparently, via the
>Internet. I won't bother responding to him.
I love it! There's an article in Brill's Content this month, with a
conservative whining again about that shit (in more ways than one).
He says that conservatives, rightly, keep pointing out that liberals
would be throwing a fit if this were trowled all over black heroes
instead of the Virgin Mary. Since I believe that artists can like
whoever they want, including Martin Luther King over the Catholic
church, I can forgive his stupidity in not getting that Mary is
obvious one of the painter's heroes, or at least stopping to think
that art is in part about examining one's need for heroes. At some
level, it doesn't matter, since the art should get its say anyhow. I
could almost forgive his not noticing that the shit isn't shoveled on
loosely, had that been a slip in writing about what he'd seen, since
the meaning doesn't hinge on the clumping. But it's just
unforgiveable that, first, the latter mistake stems from his not
having seen the work and, second, that the other paintings ARE about
black heroes.
BTW, it's been pointed out that Giuliani was staging a media event to
attract publicity and get the support of the Right. He'd known of the
show's content for a year, and at that press conference he actually
fed the question to a journalist, who obediently asked it. One
journalist, Lewis Lapham in Harper's, says that shows he isn't really
a fascist, just an opportunist, but judging by his uncompromising
policies, there's no reason he couldn't be both.
Oh, s***, I just went off on my own long rants. That too is a kind of
refusal to deal with art. This thread is about a truly excellent
report on the Turner Prize.
tomi...@hotmail.com
> Just out of curiosity - have you visited the show and seen the work ?
I
> just had a long Email from someone on alt.philosophy.debate about the
> Sensation show - he said he wanted to be shocked by the show and was
> disappointed ...... blah, blah, blah ....... and then he suddenly
> revealed that he had seen the work - all of it apparently, via the
> Internet. I won't bother responding to him.
>
> evidence and pass it onto the world for others to make more
judgements.
> As artists we have an obligation to remain open minded and to *look*
and
> *think* about what we are seeing before passing on that information.
now *you* didnt remain open minded and thought about my research into
this case, or you didnt appriciate it.. =).
i've read two articles about Tracey Emin from different magazines, seen
some of her stuff both there and on internet. the fact still remains,
she is total failure on art. she'll never be anything and her "shit
pussy vagina" mentality or her installations are as important as
nothing. just because i haven't seen her works in real life doesnt mean
i cant have opinion on her. just because she is famous doesnt tell
anything about the quality of her works (or "process" what have lead to
her works, what the scene prefers more). She is just one reason to rape
the name of Turner. big time.
> Turner would most likely have loved this award - why would you say he
> wouldn't ? It is awarded to encourage the career of the British
artists
> who has contributed most to British art during the last twelve months.
we live in another world today than in back to 18th century. why would
turner love such failures as represented here?. if those people are the
one's who have been contributed the most there's something wrong.
where were the painters?
> In his own time Turner suffered a great deal of criticism for his
work -
> he was, after all, the first true abstract painter - and the most
avant
> garde artist of the nineteenth century - he deplored the structure of
> the academy and detested the bourgeoisie. He was also brash and
> confident and all the things that the young British artists are
today.
I don't see any speciality with the works represented on the awards.
it's same stuff basicly that have been filled every single contemporary
gallery for half a century now.
ps. nice article!
-tomi
mdeli
>Just out of curiosity - have you visited the show and seen the work ? I
>just had a long Email from someone on alt.philosophy.debate about the
>Sensation show - he said he wanted to be shocked by the show and was
>disappointed ...... blah, blah, blah ....... and then he suddenly
>revealed that he had seen the work - all of it apparently, via the
>Internet. I won't bother responding to him.
If something looks like crap on the net its pretty likley to look like
crap in the round.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
my book, comments, work at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Alison A Raimes
>now *you* didnt remain open minded and thought about my research into
>this case, or you didnt appriciate it.. =).
OK ! But actually I was responding to Leigh, who I had an exchange with
some time ago about Turner after he wrote an essay in which he declared
him relatively *unknown* .... roars from the British !
>i've read two articles about Tracey Emin from different magazines, seen
>some of her stuff both there and on internet. the fact still remains,
>she is total failure on art. she'll never be anything and her "shit
>pussy vagina" mentality or her installations are as important as
>nothing. just because i haven't seen her works in real life doesnt mean
>i cant have opinion on her. just because she is famous doesnt tell
>anything about the quality of her works (or "process" what have lead to
>her works, what the scene prefers more). She is just one reason to rape
>the name of Turner. big time.
Just another question then: do you make all judgements on artists and
their work based on what people say or write about them ?
Having seen her work and I do agree with you, but I will not condemn the
other artists, past and future, based on my own personal opinion of an
artist who clearly is attracting the most attention and interest in
Britain this year, and thereby qualifies herself as a contestant.
Incidentally, I have NOT read any articles on her but I have heard her
give a lecture and seen her interviewed on TV - the best one was when
she was drunk and told a load of stuffed shirts to *piss off* ... I
cheered !
In considering her work I placed her in the historical context of the
increased interest in the *self* that dominates our societies and
considered all the things that have happened to her as a woman,
particularly being raped and having an abortion. Looking at the greater
picture I was able to see how woman have become so angry over the
centuries of being treated as second class citizens and was able to see
how the new *freedom* that has accompanied the Feminist revolt is loaded
with problems relating to this new so called *freedom*. In a political
context then her work is vital as a statement of this problem and she
will serve as constant reminder of this.
On an aesthetic basis, I have tried to consider how, as a proven and
accomplished artist in the past, she has decided to abandon aesthetic
sensibility. In the same way she is also abandoning convention. She may
be saying that if the *self* is to be so important in today's society
then surely, as the tabloids constantly remind us, the things we never
talk about must be an essential component. She clearly recognises that
the public of today want to be scandalised and shocked by the bringing
out into public that which most people do behind locked doors, and she
knows she will receive fame as a result, based on societies obsession in
responding to scandal. Isn't she proving then, exactly what is the truth
in relation to where Western society has arrived ? Isn't that, after
all, what art has done for centuries ? Bring out that which is ignored -
take a mirror to the world and reflect what society has become ?
>we live in another world today than in back to 18th century. why would
>turner love such failures as represented here?. if those people are the
>one's who have been contributed the most there's something wrong.
>where were the painters?
How do you measure failure in today's art world - that is twice you have
said it ? Do you measure it based on purely your own judgements ?
In the eyes of many, Turner was a failure. He turned away from the
traditions of art - of the subject matter being historical
representation and reflection of nature and humanity, and replaced it
with human emotion. He used materials and painting techniques never
before used, and don't please forget that much of his work, that
referred directly to sexuality, was destroyed by Ruskin to save his
reputation. That is an important factor.
You ask about the painters ? Most of Britain's painters have already
been nominated during the past few years. Last year's winner was a
painter - Chris Ofili ... you may have heard of him ;-)
>I don't see any speciality with the works represented on the awards.
>it's same stuff basicly that have been filled every single contemporary
>gallery for half a century now.
Do you think we are in too much of a hurry for the *new* ? If one looks
back over history there are many periods when the art world *treads
water*. Looking back over the last century we had a truly amazing time
of it - so much happened, so many expectations and changes fulfilled -
if we go two or three decades with nothing ground breaking, in
historical terms it is but a second. Perhaps now is the time to take a
breather ? Take the pressure off the artists to produce something *new*
and get back to the investigations. It seems to me that too much is
being demanded of artists too early these days - the performance
syndrome and you know how that can affect a person ;-0
--
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
tomi...@hotmail.com
> Just another question then: do you make all judgements on artists and
> their work based on what people say or write about them ?
you know, whoever does that is fooling himself. ofcourse I strive not
to do , but when i have to do - i use sources that seem to be reliable
for me. just like i do for hitler, gandhi, etc...
> In considering her work I placed her in the historical context of the
> increased interest in the *self* that dominates our societies and
> considered all the things that have happened to her as a woman,
> particularly being raped and having an abortion. Looking at the
greater
> picture I was able to see how woman have become so angry over the
> centuries of being treated as second class citizens and was able to
see
> how the new *freedom* that has accompanied the Feminist revolt is
loaded
> with problems relating to this new so called *freedom*. In a political
> context then her work is vital as a statement of this problem and she
> will serve as constant reminder of this.
i dont see anything "interesting" or "worthy" on that. perhaps
something to do with psychology, not *art*. i dont know what do you
mean exactly with "increased interest in the *self* that dominates our
societies". supermodels have reigned our society for dozens of years
with their performences while noone know Emin :).
> On an aesthetic basis, I have tried to consider how, as a proven and
> accomplished artist in the past, she has decided to abandon aesthetic
> sensibility. In the same way she is also abandoning convention. She
may
> be saying that if the *self* is to be so important in today's society
> then surely, as the tabloids constantly remind us, the things we never
> talk about must be an essential component. She clearly recognises that
> the public of today want to be scandalised and shocked by the bringing
> out into public that which most people do behind locked doors, and she
> knows she will receive fame as a result, based on societies obsession
in
> responding to scandal. Isn't she proving then, exactly what is the
truth
> in relation to where Western society has arrived ? Isn't that, after
> all, what art has done for centuries ? Bring out that which is
ignored -
> take a mirror to the world and reflect what society has become ?
i bet her world doesnt have much to do with how society really is,
she's individual like we all are. we get that all from newspapers
everyday anyway, so i dont see any need for someone to tell it for me
via *arts*. the way she does it is stupid as far as i see it. galleries
who show that crap are corrupted.
> >we live in another world today than in back to 18th century. why
would
> >turner love such failures as represented here?. if those people are
the
> >one's who have been contributed the most there's something wrong.
> >where were the painters?
>
> How do you measure failure in today's art world - that is twice you
have
> said it ? Do you measure it based on purely your own judgements ?
"failure" for me is someone who doesnt have anything to offer. yep, i
base it purely my own judgement.
> In the eyes of many, Turner was a failure. He turned away from the
> traditions of art - of the subject matter being historical
> representation and reflection of nature and humanity, and replaced it
> with human emotion. He used materials and painting techniques never
> before used, and don't please forget that much of his work, that
> referred directly to sexuality, was destroyed by Ruskin to save his
> reputation. That is an important factor.
all works are dealing with sexuality =)
> You ask about the painters ? Most of Britain's painters have already
> been nominated during the past few years. Last year's winner was a
> painter - Chris Ofili ... you may have heard of him ;-)
yes but dont remember his works =( gotta search some stuff from him :>
>
> >I don't see any speciality with the works represented on the awards.
> >it's same stuff basicly that have been filled every single
contemporary
> >gallery for half a century now.
>
> Do you think we are in too much of a hurry for the *new* ?
we shouldn't be; there is a need for a break imo... i think we will go
backwards to classicism. that's my prediction =)
Kay
the 70s. The artists that paved the way with the same ideologies, grew with
their art and no longer do that.
Kay
tomi...@hotmail.com wrote in message <81pi0j$jvi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:
:> Just another question then: do you make all judgements on artists and
:> their work based on what people say or write about them ?
:
:you know, whoever does that is fooling himself. ofcourse I strive not
:to do , but when i have to do - i use sources that seem to be reliable
:for me. just like i do for hitler, gandhi, etc...
:
:> In considering her work I placed her in the historical context of the
:> increased interest in the *self* that dominates our societies and
:> considered all the things that have happened to her as a woman,
:> particularly being raped and having an abortion. Looking at the
:greater
:> picture I was able to see how woman have become so angry over the
:> centuries of being treated as second class citizens and was able to
:see
:> how the new *freedom* that has accompanied the Feminist revolt is
:loaded
:> with problems relating to this new so called *freedom*. In a political
:> context then her work is vital as a statement of this problem and she
:> will serve as constant reminder of this.
:
:i dont see anything "interesting" or "worthy" on that. perhaps
:something to do with psychology, not *art*. i dont know what do you
:mean exactly with "increased interest in the *self* that dominates our
:societies". supermodels have reigned our society for dozens of years
:with their performences while noone know Emin :).
:
:> On an aesthetic basis, I have tried to consider how, as a proven and
:> accomplished artist in the past, she has decided to abandon aesthetic
:> sensibility. In the same way she is also abandoning convention. She
:may
:> be saying that if the *self* is to be so important in today's society
:> then surely, as the tabloids constantly remind us, the things we never
:> talk about must be an essential component. She clearly recognises that
:> the public of today want to be scandalised and shocked by the bringing
:> out into public that which most people do behind locked doors, and she
:> knows she will receive fame as a result, based on societies obsession
:in
:> responding to scandal. Isn't she proving then, exactly what is the
:truth
:> in relation to where Western society has arrived ? Isn't that, after
:> all, what art has done for centuries ? Bring out that which is
:ignored -
:> take a mirror to the world and reflect what society has become ?
:
:i bet her world doesnt have much to do with how society really is,
:she's individual like we all are. we get that all from newspapers
:everyday anyway, so i dont see any need for someone to tell it for me
:via *arts*. the way she does it is stupid as far as i see it. galleries
:who show that crap are corrupted.
:
:> >we live in another world today than in back to 18th century. why
:would
:> >turner love such failures as represented here?. if those people are
:the
:> >one's who have been contributed the most there's something wrong.
:> >where were the painters?
:>
:> How do you measure failure in today's art world - that is twice you
:have
:> said it ? Do you measure it based on purely your own judgements ?
:
:"failure" for me is someone who doesnt have anything to offer. yep, i
:base it purely my own judgement.
:
:> In the eyes of many, Turner was a failure. He turned away from the
:> traditions of art - of the subject matter being historical
:> representation and reflection of nature and humanity, and replaced it
:> with human emotion. He used materials and painting techniques never
:> before used, and don't please forget that much of his work, that
:> referred directly to sexuality, was destroyed by Ruskin to save his
:> reputation. That is an important factor.
:
:all works are dealing with sexuality =)
:
:> You ask about the painters ? Most of Britain's painters have already
:> been nominated during the past few years. Last year's winner was a
:> painter - Chris Ofili ... you may have heard of him ;-)
:
:yes but dont remember his works =( gotta search some stuff from him :>
:>
:> >I don't see any speciality with the works represented on the awards.
:> >it's same stuff basicly that have been filled every single
:contemporary
:> >gallery for half a century now.
:>
:> Do you think we are in too much of a hurry for the *new* ?
:
:we shouldn't be; there is a need for a break imo... i think we will go
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>My only problem with Emins is that she is rehashing old feminist themes from
>the 70s. The artists that paved the way with the same ideologies, grew with
>their art and no longer do that.
>Kay
>
If she is a sincere artist then she will be dead soon - that was her
pledge if she didn't win the Turner Prize.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
ran...@my-deja.com
U.S.A.) and I found the submission by the Wilson sisters to be simply
astounding. Absolutely brilliant. Similar to previous Wilson pieces
that I have seen in New York, the Carnegie video installation addressed
our contemporary notion of the "institution" - a sort of Orwellian view
of the Post-Cold War era. Although they did not receive the Carnegie
Prize (like that makes a difference), it was one of my most memorable
experiences of the exhibition.
Regardless of who or who does not win an award, I feel a certain sense
of comfort knowing that artists, like Jane and Louise Wilson, continue
to surprise and challenge ...
Richard
John Haber
the NY Times yet? I keep looking.
James W. Foster
getting people to give me their old underwear they don't need, putting it in
a cardboard box and selling it to some rich bastard just for the sole
purpose of getting the Sun to print the headline "Man pays money for load of
old pants!"
Anyway, I'm off to make lampshades before they give me another injection.
-james
John Haber <jh...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:3846f258...@news.columbia.edu...
tomi...@hotmail.com
"James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
> I gave up following the Turner Prize last year. But I will win it by
> getting people to give me their old underwear they don't need,
putting it in
> a cardboard box and selling it to some rich bastard just for the sole
> purpose of getting the Sun to print the headline "Man pays money for
load of
> old pants!"
Hey James.
Matthew Slotover, the chief editor in "Freeze" which represents
young'n'trendy arts says "Art's value is what people are ready to pay
for it."
For a free hint for your coming underwear exhibit, use something from
Princessa Diana for it. Possibly something negative, it's what people
want from others. I'll bet my ass of that the stupid britts keep
talking about you for a week in every media and you'll be up in the
stars just the day after the grand open gala.
-tomi
ps. don't care about "turner"-prizes. the fact still remains; every
critic who is keeping himself self-honoured haven't ever gamed or
supported the show of british fine arts wannabes.
*