return to worldwidereview.com,
the home of critical reviews
From: Eva Category: Exhibitions Date: 05 October 2006 Time: 01:37 PM Review: http://tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/ Maybe the reason why every year I’m disappointed when I discover the Turner Prize is mediocre is because every year I expect it to be good, or at least better. Some people may prefer to be disappointed because it’s not shocking. Some pay their entrance fee to see the crème de la crème of British contemporary art and after leaving under-whelmed don’t bother much with contemporary art show for another year. In the mainstream media, what’s generally debated is which of the artists deserves to win, the value of contemporary art in general, and the antics of those who make extravagant and stupid protests against the prize. What artists debate every year is whether the mediocrity of the outcome is an inevitability given the structure of the event. Every year there appears to be a relationship between the four artists chosen, be it one of difference. The public is invited to pit these artists (or often the media they represent) against each other. This year we have a neat sculptor, a sloppy sculptor, a formalist painter and an installation artist; two women and two men; society, eccentricity, expression and abstraction. The judges have made a real effort to balance it out – this ‘balance’ doesn’t help on the mediocrity front. Mark Titchner is first up with eccentric neat sculptures and posters, ecclesiastical pychadelia of a visual art variety. His world is a bit Orwellian, a bit Sunday school, with totalitarian dictator style posters and the truism / nonsense of found texts. Rebecca Warren uses sloppy clay, often cast in bronze, to describe strange forms that are a bit like rabbits, a bit like lumps of human flesh. She says she was worried that people would think her limited if she only showed these, her trademark works, so she’s diverted a bit and produced some extremely lame vitrines containing Hackney detritus. The meaning of these she leaves to the viewer. I believe they mean she hasn’t got a lot to say. Tomma Abts paintings are medium sized, mid toned, abstract and processed based. The blurb about her is hilarious: her “method pitches the rational against the intuitive”. As opposed to which other artist in this exhibition, or in the world? At least by this we know that she is neither insane nor a robot. The paintings are neat with some nice tonal observations, I tried to spend a long time with them but couldn’t. Phil Collins’ work certainly demands time, lots of it. If you enter when Tate opens and watch his video installation until it shuts then you will see it all. Did a reality TV show ruin your life? If so then Collins would like to know. His double screen installation is certainly engaging, as is reality TV. Are these people ‘for real’ or playing to the camera? His title ‘Return to the Real’ would have been much better if it didn’t contain a Hal Foster reference. Although I enjoyed this work from the point of view of the interest in the people, in an art context its not so original (maybe that’s what he really meant with that Foster reference?). Is Collins exploiting these people anew or giving them an opportunity to redeem their first televised experience? Kutlug Ataman and Santiago Serra did it better. Who will win the Turner Prize? All four of these artists have already won by being short-listed. The Frieze Art Fair is not far away now and it’ll be interesting to spot their work there. I look forward to next year's Turner Prize. I expect it to be better...