'Mark Wallinger has been named the winner of the Turner Prize for his replica of the one-man anti-war protest in Parliament Square, State Britain.' BBC news

The 'artist' Mark Wallinger has recreated the one man anti British government foreign policy protest of Brian Haw .
'Every detail was copied from his tarpaulin shelter and tea-making area to the messages of support and hand-painted placards' BBC news

This is quintessential Turner prize fodder- actually 'shit' has quite literally been the basis of at least two winners i can think of.
It takes the rather profound idea that our invasion of Iraq was a bad idea.
Now is it me? or does most of the country think exactly that? Why do we need an artist to tell us in a completely tedious way something a lot of us already know, and even those who think the invasion was a good idea, must have at least contemplated that view that it wasn't.

The reason i say this is quintessential Turner prize fodder is that so often political or sociological criteria are used instead of aesthetic ones-why? because they're easier.
Let me explain, it's quite hard to explain what makes the Mona Lisa a great work of art, many try, but few succeed, because it's something you intuit at a profoundly subjective level-but the girls enigma has certainly stood the test of time. It takes a great deal of skill and incite to provide something close to a critique of this masterpiece.
I'm not saying war and social discourse shouldn't enter into art-Guernica-a painting by Pablo Picasso's depicting the Nazi German bombing of that town in Spain, is one of the most beautiful and profound paintings in existence-but it is an aesthetic experience to view it, not merely a political one.
With the turner prize social commentary or politics take precedence-anti foreign policy is an easy target and chimes with the art establishment, racism, sexism etc are all popular and easy in a literal way and permeate what passes for artistic thinking in the higher echelons of the artistic establishment these days.


Don't believe the hype-this is not intellectual, or art this is 'jobs' for the boys in the art establishment

You make an interesting post although I am not an expert on art and aesthetics so can't add much enlightentment. I see where you are coming from, and that 'what is art?" argument is in the background. The only points I can really add are that there seems to be a distinction in art bewteen statement and aesthetics. I get the impression that this work is merely a statement and not artistic or aesthetic in any way to many. If ti is basically a political statement devoid of these attributes then I guess it should not be deemed art in the sense of a prize winning piece. I sometimes though look at art that has the aesthetics, say a still life bowl of fruit, adn think what si the point of that? Ok so it looks right but it adds nothign to the experince of seeing a bowl of fruit really, so I do like some originality and statement in my art. However, the best art is as you say liek Guernica where it is creative and aesthetical whilst still being political and statement orientated. That's the best stuff :ok: I guess what this guy did coudl have been taken as a photo or sketched by anyone, or simply filmed briefly. I guess ti si still art but not in such a strong sense.

Hope that makes sense :unsure: :)

I actually like quite a lot of modern art - especially modern paintings. However, that tends to be 'cos I like to look at it and not because I agree with what it "means." I think art should be something that's incredible or beautiful to look at rather than something that looks ordinary that makes you think :shrug: Art is surely about aesthetics, and as far as I can see a lot of stuff that's won the Turner Prize isn't actually great to look at. Possibly that's my uneducated and seriously un-artistic view though.....

Looking at this year's winner, surely if he "recreated" another man's work that's not art, it's plagarism (even if the other man was a war protestor not an "artist.") It's the same as some guy winning it (I think) for recreating Buster Keaton's sketch with the house falling on top of him - not art - outright stealing the idea from someone else.

Honestly, if I "recreate" word-for-word someone elses work in my job I would get in trouble for plagarism - if you do it in the art world you get handed money..... :shrug:

Yeah SB, Brian Haw's protest makes sense as a protest, just not as art, and you're spot on to assume that 'what is art' is behind what i wrote.
What i find irritating with much conceptual art, is the idea that these 'artist's' are rebels, or in some way against the establishment.
Take a well known concept artist Damian Hirst, He was embraced not only by Charles Saatchi but also by such establishment figures as Sir Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate Gallery (Remember the Saatchi brother's helped bring Thatcher to power-so they can obviously pick em)
The art establishment fall over themselves to praise this stuff, hardly outsider art, by any means.

roflmao Absolutely this did cross my mind too.
You see 'artist' Mark Wallinger has transformed, almost by magic Brian's piece into art, and that's why it's different-Brilliant! So Mark gets more fame and money, and then some more money as his career really takes off, and the original protester, well he gets the reassurance that he made a moderately wealthy 'artist' very wealthy by using his exact protest-unbelievable :nope:

Well protest comes accross in many things, and the fact that it gets into all areas fo culture is valuable, such as in music becuase it is a popular accessible medium. I don't think people should be told that a line must be drawn in their artistic medium, but I do totally agree that much of this is not real protest but highyl contrived and on that fakery annoys me. it goes against the very essence fo what ti claims to be.

the report also states that he employed 15 people for 6 months to make the work.......surely that's a bit on the cheeky side? Kinda like coming up with the idea of a painting and then getting someone else to do the actual painting and then take the credit for it....... :whistle:

apparently that's what Damien Hurst does Jo. He comes up with the idea and then his production line actually produces the artwork!

And it still sells for 7 figure sums!

:blink:

Times have cahnged haven't they. Well I guess nowadays we have the technology to do that as it were, but in the past didn't artists have folk helping them paint large things? Did Angelo paint all the Cistine on his own? I have no idea. I suppose you are still an artist but more of a designer and project manager. When you do it all yourself I guess it means much more, but I don't think you can be expected to undertake huge projects alone every time. When you look back at who gets credit for building things it is the architect and not the people who slaved away with bricks and mortar.

Also I guess this shows what Marx and other philosophers said about art and production. There was more craft and satisfaction in seeign a job through form start to finish, but when others became involved and the production line started people became alienated from the fruits of their labour and their product was devalued and less artistic. And fo course there is the issue that capital gain devalues art and ruins it's purity. tThen there was soem philosopher who i forget who talked of reification - where art is impure if done fo ranythign other than artistic expression I think. So tryign to make commercail gain, seek fame or win prozes meant ti was worthless.