Exhibitions
The Turner Prize: works by short-listed artists (Tate Gallery till 7 December)
Fancied favourites
Giles Auty
In the media run-up to this year's £10,000 Turner Prize, awarded to the person 'who has made the greatest con- tribution to art in Britain in the previous 12 months', racing terminology was all the rage. In two national dailies competing artists were presented variously as odds-on bets, worth a flutter, or rank outsiders. With bookmakers William Hill genuinely laying the field, all we have lacked subse- quently is evidence of bumping and boring in the last furlong and a stewards' inquiry. At the final call-over, it was hardly surpris- ing that one of only two four-legged mounts in the race (Gilbert & George and Art & Language) should emerge as out- standing favourites. All the other unfor- tunate runners had to get the distance on just two legs apiece.
When the 1986 jury retired at last to consider its verdict, the neighs carried the day and the human quadruped won at a canter. As also occurred in 1985 when Howard Hodgkin was declared the winner, last year's bridesmaid was to be this year's bride. Gilbert & George, who were short- listed in 1985, duly stepped up to receive their cheque at the hands of imported celebrity Melvyn Bragg. The huge Tate audience was hushed but, once again, the gallery microphones failed to function properly and Mr Bragg was inaudible. Perhaps next year's ceremony should be held at Sandown or Chepstow where they have more practice in these matters.
Judging by the shrill protests in other papers, this year's choice of winner(s) has not been popular. Nor will Gilbert & George's case have been aided by the Tate Gallery press release which told us — since we couldn't hear at the time — that the prize had been awarded 'for their work and life as living sculptors'.
As I cannot imagine Melvyn Bragg voluntarily mouthing such a tautology, I imagine 'living sculptures' were the words someone or other was searching for. It was under this description that G & G, as they are cosily known in our business, first sprang upon the public consciousness — If spring is not too active a word for a pair whose original impact arose from a 'sculp- tural' ability to stand stock still. The Turner Prize is awarded annually by the Patrons of New Art, a group — so the same press release tells us — 'set up within the Friends of the Tate Gallery to encour- age a lively interest in new developments in art and its collection, both public and private'. Looking at this year's short list of six — Art & Language, Victor Burgin, G & G, Derek Jarman, Steven McKenna and Bill Woodrow — one might be for- given for thinking that the aim is to discourage all public interest, once and for all. The work of the first two candidates is primarily non-visual and obscure, to put it mildly, while Gilbert & George tend to be remembered by the public at large for some of their more exhibitionistic antics: videotapes of the duo in their cups entitled 'Gordon's Makes Us Drunk' and 'Balls or the Evening Before the Morning After'. Jarman got the nod principally for his controversial films Caravaggio and Sebas- tiane; McKenna paints neo-historical sub- ject matter somewhat clumsily and Bill Woodrow makes joky, assemblage/ sculptures from domestic detritus. Almost everyone I spoke to hoped that he would win.
If these really were the best of the bunch, one would fear for the vine. But, of course, they are not. The wording of the prize-winning criterion — 'the greatest contribution to art in Britain in the pre- vious 12 months' — is entirely misleading and has been seen to be so since the prize's inception three years ago. Then it was widely believed that the greatest contribu- tion to art in Britain made by the first prizewinner, Malcolm Morley, had been his decision to take up full-time residence in America. Each year our best and most famous artists are ignored by the selection panel, who clearly have other, coved criteria in mind when compiling their short list. Some might imagine, wrongly I am sure, that 'Help the Ageing Trendy' was this year's secret, charitable theme — or even a whispered instruction passed among members of the jury. So far, most of the critical rage has been directed at the selection of short-listed candidates, thus masking a more serious issue. Should we not first ask 'Wh° selected this particular jury?' rather than `Who selected this particular short list?, Aside from Alan Bowness, the Tate Gal- lery's director, who is a permanent mem- ber of the jury, this year's panellists were directors of museums from Switzerland and Oxford, a part-time teacher/critic and a Swedish collector.
If this really is the jury best suited to assess what is going on currently in British art, then I'm probably a Dutchman.
Previous page
