This article was originally published for subscribers to my Substack in late 2022. Be the first to read my writing on art, architecture, and life by subscribing here: https://morganhaigh.substack.com/
Reports of the Turner Prize’s longevity are greatly exaggerated. The fatal blow to Britain’s previously vaunted, and often controversial, contemporary art medal came in 2019 when the four nominees demanded to be recognised as an impromptu ‘collective’ and thus all claim the prize money as a group. Provocative gestures have been the bread and butter of the Turner since its inception in 1984, however, this ‘collective’ decision came in for much criticism as it rather defeated the point of the award and its enormous prize pool. The function of the prize is not only to highlight interesting and innovative artists at work in the UK but also to grant the winner a windfall of money with which to support their future career. In short, it is a prize for a breakthrough artist, an opportunity for their contribution to the culture of these islands to be brought to the wider attention of the public and a showing of criticism and debate in the arts. There being one winner is an important element of the exercise, it demonstrates that not all art is born equal.
The terminal decline in the standing and relevancy of the prize is now starkly clear with covid behind us. As someone who works in the arts and likes to consider himself appropriately plugged into what’s happening with culture in the UK, I was totally oblivious to the prize this year. Coverage in the press was minimal to nonexistent, I’d seen nothing promoting, reviewing, or discussing the nominees on social media, and certainly nothing on television. I only became aware of this year’s competition when I happened across a tweet last week from someone bemoaning missing that evening’s prize-giving ceremony due to illness. Consulting with friends and colleagues later that day the responses were a chorus of questions: Turner Prize? It was on this year? Where was it? Who was nominated?
If people who work and study in the arts were oblivious, then what hope did the wider public have of getting on board with this year’s show? As it turns out, the prize was hosted at the Tate in Liverpool, every-other year the show gets on the road and is hosted in the provinces rather than from the Tate Britain in London. As usual four artists were nominated and exhibited, Heather Phillipson, Ingrid Pollard, Veronica Ryan, and Sin Wai Kin – an all-female shortlist. The winner, announced at the gala last week, was Ryan, who presented a room painted bright yellow in which she hung small fruits, nuts, and seeds in red nets, all produce that her Montserrat-born mother had given her as a child growing up in London. Further objects in the room evoked the foods and furnishings of an anglo-Caribbean household.
I cannot pass judgement on any of the works nominated this year because I cannot get to Liverpool to see the show, and anyway, my target here is not the artists but the Turner Prize, an institution that has lost its way. From its inception until 2017 one of the few conditions for nomination was to be under fifty. This would help ensure that the award remained for breakthrough artists and the money would go to supporting the fledgling careers of young creatives. Two of this year’s nominees, Pollard and the winner Ryan, are in their late sixties, 69 and 66 respectively. They are established names, Ryan received an OBE last year. Of the two younger nominees, Phillipson’s work was adorning the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square until September this year, and only the relative newcomer, Sin Wai Kin, fits the mould of the traditional Turner nominee.
There were strong arguments against the removal of the age limit from those wishing to defend the integrity of the award, the suggestion being that without the youthful requirement there was a danger of the prize becoming simply a distinguished service medal for established and establishment artists, leaving the fresh generations high and dry in want of recognition and funding. This prophecy would appear to have come true with Ryan being not only the oldest winner of the prize but also significantly older than almost every winner since the award’s beginnings. The rather hypothetical response from Helen Legg, co-chair of the judges, was “I think this is the Turner Prize really recognising that artists can have a breakthrough at any moment in their career” …not forgetting Ryan’s OBE or glittering list of major exhibitions and commissions over the previous decades.
There has also been some discussion in the press around the female-only nature of the shortlist. Whilst there is no doubt that for centuries western art has been male-dominated, and that the increasing display and promotion of female artists is a long overdue thing, some of the language used around this year’s prize seems to be less than helpful. For example, at the prize-giving last week, the host proudly announced “Apparently all the journalists are asking why there are no men on the shortlist: perhaps there were no men good enough!” At a time when art as a subject at GCSE and A Level has become an almost entirely female pursuit, I think it is unfortunate for young boys considering pursuing art that at the country’s premier art event they are told that there were ‘no men good enough’ to even be shortlisted. It flies in the face of the all-welcoming and inclusive persona that Tate and the Turner like to perform.
There are also questions about how individuals, of all genders, get nominated in the first place. The custom is that they are chosen from a pool of noteworthy exhibitions from the previous year, however, as both The Guardian and The Art Newspaper have pointed out, this year more than most, this has meant a rather incestuous selection process. Ryan was nominated for her show ‘Spike Island’ hosted at a venue in Bristol, the director of which, Robert Leckie, just happens to be one of the Turner Prize judges this year. This is not a one-off coincidence, as Lee Cheshire notes in the Art Newspaper, “two of the other shortlisted artists were also nominated for exhibitions that took place at venues directed by members of the judging panel.”
Whether through intention, or a purely circumstantial conflict of interest, it is not a good look for the integrity of the competition with the wider public. In fact, none of this is a good look for a prize that has always received a love/hate reception from the populous. This would seem to be another signal of the Turner Prize’s decline, the fact it has almost entirely fallen out of the public consciousness. From 1991 to 2004 Channel 4’s sponsorship of the prize, under the vision of Waldemar Januszczak, meant that the gala award ceremony was given primetime live television coverage. Glamorous hosts included Jude Law, Yoko Ono, and Madonna and the often controversial artworks and decisions made for dramatic television – this year’s unbroadcast ceremony was hosted by the former lead-singer of Frankie Goes to Hollywood. Winners such as Rachel Whiteread, Tracy Emin and Damien Hurst were the talk of the town by both lovers and haters – the national conversation was about art!
The fall from relevancy has been stark since then. Tate’s decision to send the prize out to the regions every other year, whilst intended to bring attention outside of London, seems to have had the opposite effect. London is not only the most populous but also the best connected of any city in the UK, although appearing to exclude the regions, hosting major national events in London does at least afford as many people as possible the opportunity of access and avoids the shows falling into a kind of provincial obscurity where only local people attend and a result of poor inter-regional infrastructure in the UK – something for which I think it would be unfair to wholly blame Tate. (Sidenote: Whilst England and Scotland are well represented in the history of venues, the Turner has never come to Wales!) Unfortunately, they seem to be doubling down on this strategy as it was announced that, instead of the unusual return to London next year, the prize will travel to the Towner Gallery in Eastbourne – a terrific gallery but not one that is easily accessible for the majority of the population.
What is the future of the Turner Prize? Can it be revived? Should it be revived? The very existence of a national arts medal has been criticised in the past, with some asking whether it is appropriate or even possible to objectively favour one artist’s work over another in such a way. Those people who insist that all matters of taste and quality are subjective will never be open to the idea of hierarchy or negative criticism in the arts. These kinds of accusations are often tied up with a dislike of the works previously nominated and so the baby, it is suggested, ought to be thrown out with the bathwater. I believe there is a place for an annual visual arts award, if done well they can get the public talking about art (as the early history of the Turner has shown), and it can be a major platform for the display of our country’s not inconsiderable artistic talent, and crucially, it is an opportunity to show that art can, and should, be criticised, that it is not only acceptable but vital that opinions are had, shared, and debated about culture. My experience of teaching adults art history has shown me that one of the great hurdles people struggle to overcome when discussing art is the feeling they have no right to voice their opinion.
Therefore, I believe, besides reinstating the upper age limit and returning the award to live TV, the one thing that could save Turner is the greater inclusion of the viewing public in the nomination and awarding of the prize. The hostility, or worse, apathy, towards the prize often stems from the idea that the art mandarins on the jury are dictating taste to the nation. The gulf between what the directors of white-cube galleries appreciate and the wider public seems almost unbridgeable, and yet we are told the Turner Prize is the bellwether of what is ‘Good Art’ in the UK. A simple enough solution to this would be to introduce a Eurovision model to the selection of the winner, 50% the opinions of the jury and 50% a public vote. At the end of the exhibition, after the visitor has seen all four displays, they are invited to anonymously vote for their favourite by token or push-button or some equivalent. Not only would this bring back a closer connection between the public and the art that is meant to speak for them, but also help people feel more invested in the prize and the wider arts culture in the UK. We would hopefully find that the true, and improving, taste of the nation was better reflected in the winners.
So, the Turner Prize may be dead in the water, but that doesn’t mean we should give up on the idea of a national prize for artists. It is important, at this time when the arts are being squeezed from all sides, that we do not lose this platform to support young artists and engage the public in the cultural conversation. If we go back to the fundamental relationship between art, artist, and viewer and build a new Turner Prize with this at its heart, then we might just save it from disappearing up its own arse.
Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed this article you can get many more sent straight to your email inbox, and read them before anyone else, by subscribing to my new Substack. Click Here: https://morganhaigh.substack.com/
Morgan Haigh 