The Turner Prize is back to 'baffle, bemuse and bewilder'?

Thanks for the URL. It always amazes me how the BBC, who can intelligently analyze the Tchechen situation or African debt relief, adopt this blunt, middle-brow tone of peevish mystification when they address contemp art. Sorta 'When will these people, with their eccentric provocations, ever learn?' I think what makes contempart threatening to people with a News Reporting mindset (assuming the journos are not just internalising and dramatising a perceived hostility on the part of their public) is the fact that contempart deals with the same questions 'the News' does, but in this skewed and surreal way which avoids the sort of moral closure of news reporting. And I think if you're not going on all the time about such and such being 'a tragedy' and such and such being 'a victory', you're considered amoral. Hence this article's insistence that the work only makes sense when you see the artists being interviewed about it on video. Only that sort of personal angle, the pedagogical explanation, the narrowing of meaning, the greater degree of closure, makes the artworks acceptable to the journalist and his/her introjected public. How very fuddy duddy. Because art is often a lot to do with blasting people out of certainty and towards ambiguity. In other words, it's going in the opposite direction.

Now I see that the writer of the piece is from 'BBC Online News Entertainment Staff'. So part of the problem is the fact that contempart is so neglected that it doesn't have dedicated writers. And the reason the journo introjects fear and loathing of contempart into her feature is that a neglected subject becomes a subject of guilt and fear, like an old abandoned well in the woods or a barrell which once contained apples but may, in the years since you last looked in, have filled up with spiders.

The feature concludes: 'Overall, the exhibition is worth visiting, if only to see what is considered to be at the forefront of British contemporary art.' Now, would the BBC tell you to visit Westminster Abbey 'if only to see who is considered to be at the forefront of great deceased British personages'? It's the 'is considered to be' which should concern us here, because there's a strong sense of 'them and us' in it, and the more you look into that the more you'll learn about the British attitude to minorities (whether elites or outgroups) who have a worldview which differs from the (imagined or 'introjected') majority's worldview.

Having said that, some of the stuff I see is wonderful. But it's wasted in galleries. I am constantly shocked, as an adult, by the limitations placed on my play. Why must it only take place in chosen sanitised venues? You can't kill anyone, or even truly rattle anyone, in a gallery, any more than you can in a cinema, club or theatre. I wish contemporary artists could fuck me up.

The American news program 60 Minutes has been very, very guilty of this. Back in early '90's, Morley Safer did some stories on the contemporary art scene, which is, hey! great subject, sure -- we got a couple decades' worth of a state of art affairs that few on any side of the fence are happy with, money and theories and egos and money and frauds and geniuses and money money money. And what does Safer do? Safer spends two sets of fifteen minutes lobbing potshots at super-easy targets like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst, then gives face time for Hilton Kramer. In other words, HE DROPPED THE FUCKING BALL. Like so many other "respectable" journos covering the subject, he treated it like another opportunity to peramblulate, all smugly bemused and shit, through another social landscape, slip in, slip out, no it don't touch him none, it's not like he had anything riding on the subject. It's not like he or anybody else on 60 Minutes give much thought to art anyway, even art they LIKE, WHATEVER that might be. (Though if they covered Wyeth's Helga series, who on earth would be surprised?)

Also, Fiachra's definition is not very satisfactory. Modernism is more than an architectural movement, it touched every artform as well as design, lifestyle, etc, between about 1910 and 1960. Presumably he means that architectural Modernism is Gillick's special interest. But that's not true either.

The whole 'qualifying modernism' thing I've got very little problem with, because in newspapers/magazines you do have to remember that portions of your audience really don't know what it is. Time and Newsweek are written to be accesible to the 14-year-old reader, for example.

And sorry but British newspapers, 'proper'? Even on this subject they're still way less stuffy than (insert name of US paper here).

(obviously in my duchampian extremism i don't have a problem w.an approach to art which says "think of it as a kind of conjuring", though sadly they never go on towards any such confidently fuck-with-the-protocols thing)

"Frankly not very good" - okay I'd agree that some sort of justification should be employed here. But since such justification would yet again be necessarily subjective it would also be a touch redundant. Still in a professional art critic it is either refreshingly honest or ignorance masquerading as laziness.

But I thought you said it ought to billed as being back to 'appetize, ambivalize and amuse'? That's Entertainment!

Fiona Banner is a school friend of my sister's so she should win.

2. The mass-media coverage of the Turner Prize is mostly by people who aren't interested for people who aren't interested, so the whole exercise is a little loop of wringing mild amusement from the thing. I think it's a pity that the journalists who cover it aren't a bit more enthused by the art, but it doesn't exercise me much. The criticism is of such a poor quality that people who would go anyway are reminded that the thing's on, and people who won't go anyway will knee-jerkily roll their eyes (heh that sounds uncomfortable). (I'm still sore at that nice Katie G's negative comments about K. Tyson, btw)

3. If MS went to the TM to see the show then that was indeed groundbreaking.

4. I love Fiona B's current show at the Frith St Gallery. Rude words! Made out of concrete! But I hope Keith Tyson wins, mostly for the board game.

5. Er, Wallinger!

so, is there an implication that these terms are meant negatively or not? (patronisingly i'd say)

all main media coverage of turner prize is boring, because everyone says exactly what they said the previous year (ie, histrionic attacks and defenses of the thing itself, without really comparing the stuff itself - but then, we do that about the mercury prize no?)

the whole baffle/bemuse/bewilder thing is, erm, baffling anyway? who exactly is baffled by any of it anyway? people who want to be baffled/shocked. so they're already in a state of bafflement before anything has even happened

the tuner prize often reminds me of 22 going on 23 by butthole surfers

Then I looked at it and enjoyed it and I wasn't so baffled anymore.

I would run many miles from anything which reminded me of the Butthole Surfers.

award yrself the Turner Prize

Yes, I think this says it all.

Oh, hang on - I was misreading it as '[BBC Online: News Entertainment] Staff.' They meant 'BBC Online News: Entertainment Staff.'

Presumably because there's no 'BBC Online News: Arts Staff.' Dumbing down, I assume.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,823029,00.html

"I cannot help but endorse his analysis of the high art lite tendency . . . its abject willingness to be fucked up by the 1990s cult of celebrity; fucked over by the 1990s boom in consumerism; fucked sideways by its adoption of the styles and modes of popular culture; and fucked to buggery by its co-option by the new Labourite idiotology."

And yet here we have the New Labour culture minister, Kim Howells, pegging 'an expletive-laden comment card to the wall at Tate Britain where the Turner exhibition is being held.' It's almost enough to make you believe in avant garde art's 'subversion' again. It's certainly a sign that Self and Stallabrass are wrong about neo-conceptual Britart being hand-in-glove with New Labour.

Howells also apparently thinks "the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell". Oh well, there goes my Arts Council grant. Damn! These f*****g government ministers are always the last to know which way the wind is blowing. Something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Howells?

Jack 'the dripper' Pollock instead of Liam Gillick. ('See those drips? There's Existential anguish in each one. Now that's real art, none of this perspex-roof-and-video-installation rubbish!')

M People records rather than DAT Politics. ('When they sang 'Things can only get better, did they mean people would one day be making records on Gameboys? Like fuck they did!')

Tapes of 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' rather than Chris Morris. ('The Department of Funny Walks, now that's true satire in the manner of Swift. But Brass Eye... well, it's just sick. No redeeming social qualities whatsoever. He should never work in television again. And he won't, if we have anything to do with it.')

"Councillor Evans (Lab) put forward the motion that Jack Kirby comic artist and writer often refered to as King Jack Kirby should be honoured by Redbridge Council and given the freedom of the borough. Councillor Younghusband(Tory) countered that whilst Kirby was involved in many of the gound breaking comics of the 1950's and 1960's and possibly single handedly ushgered in the silver age the claims for his contributions over Stan Lee's were put upon shaky ground when one considered how piss poor an idea the New Gods and the Fourth World were."

Although last night finally escaped keyboard slavery to go to Douglas Gordon opening at Hayward Gallery, he's used The Exorcist for one of his films, there's a Fear wall which freaked out my friends but not me, and photos of wrists possibly slashed which made me queasy, but in a good way (back to the fear wall: if I could make an addition it would be 'fear of getting sliced by Stanley knife').

The Times has Anish Kapoor and one of the Chapmans look at Howells's painings here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-465620,00.html but scores a bit of an own goal vai not wanting to use the word contemporary. "Leading modernists..."!

I shall never vote Tory again.

Hang on...

This mistake should be used more often.

No Freaky Trigger, no comment.

Philip Dodd of the ICA was interviewed on R4's 'PM' news programme about that KH comment: he sounded distinctly untickled by it. (Did anyone else hear this?)
After his almost inevitable 'twas ever thus' comments (a line I don't think I've ever heard him not use, and which I'm beginning to wonder about the relevance/validity of after all these years), he was annoyed enough to indulge in a spot of personality analysis and motivation-ascribing, accusing KH of seeing himself as 'a Welsh boyo' who wanted to somehow gain credibility points..... blimey, not as if anyone in DoddyWorld likes to use a bit of the old mockney sweary or porno to give themselves a bit more streetcred, eh?
When the interviewer said 'but KH went to art school!' - as in, I suppose, this isn't just a philistine ignoramus ranting on - Doddy came out with something like: 'Well having been to art school doesn't make you clever, any more than having gone to a good university does.' Gasp. I was reminded of dave q's Define 'Stupid' thread - what does 'clever' mean? If Doddy doesn't believe in the efficacy of art school education, what's the point of having those places? If it's some 'necessary but not sufficient' deal - what are his relevant critera? Being educated into such a degree of gaping-minded liberal chinstroke that you become unable to use the word 'bullshit'?
He seemed proper outraged by KH having the nerve to use such terminology about the Art World when he wouldn't dare do so about issues such as the NHS or the Welfare State..... quite apart from the questions that attitude begs, maybe Doddy should be a bit less surprised and shocked - maybe his 'Art World' reaps what it sows, and if he's happy for it to use strong language to make a point, he shouldn't be so priggish when the same thing happens in comments about it.
(Oh, and later on Anish Kapoor (I think) made exasperated sighing noises and sneery turns of phrase - eg 'oh give me a break' - in place of anything approaching a coherent argument. Came over as a right arrogant twat.)

I'm reminded of Prince Charles's comments on modern architecture. If royal families can't reconcile themselves to modernity, why should modernity reconcile itself to royalty?

Pedantic hat on. "Things Can Only Get Better" was by D:Ream, not M People. The latter's (deeply grisly) "Search For The Hero Inside Yourself" was also a New Labour campaign tune, though.

Sounds interesting. I haven't been to an art exhibition in ages. Recommend anything in particular, Suzy?

The Newman show is even better - he's one of my favourites, and it had lots I'd never seen, even in books, and in any case the impact of their scale, and seeing a whole set together (particularly the 14 in the Stations Of The Cross series) changes the experience too.

The info panel said it was impossible to see the whole thing from one viewpoint. However, I discovered that if you stand on the bridge and stick your head outside the thing, you can just about do it.

I went to the Turner this morning and although I think it's overall the best Turner show there's been for a few years (nothing as dreadful as the Julien last year, for example) I came away a little disappointed. I think this might be because I've seen shows by each of the artists this year and in each case the individual show was better. This is no great surprise, obv., but it still doesn't make for a particularly exciting show. If I hadn't seen any of that stuff before I'd have been wowed, I think. I wish Fiona Banner had included her concrete swears.

(I'm not Suzy either but the current show at England & Co. on (ugh) Westbourne Grove is worth a look. It's called "The Map Is Not The Territory 2" and features map-related things, some of which are terrific and some less good. Bit sad that nothing R. Rumney-related is in here (he was vocered in TMINTT1), especially since he died since the last show, but that's probably just me.)

I have this week and next left of idleness, what should I go see?