The prize
When the Turner Prize began in 1984 it aimed to encourage excellence in contemporary British art. It also aimed to increase the public's interest in contemporary British art in the same way that the Booker Prize had succeeded in getting people talking about the latest novels, their favourite authors and English fiction generally.
The art version got off to a somewhat shaky start. And it's had a few wobbles since over practically everything: from the criteria for who should be considered for the prize, to the shortlist, the setting for the exhibition, and even who would pay for it all.
The greatest?
At the beginning you didn't need to be an artist to win. You could be a curator or an artist or anyone who had contributed to art in Britain in the previous 12 months. You did need to have made the 'greatest' contribution though. Some non-artists, like Nicholas Serota (who is now the director of the Tate), were considered for the prize.
Every so often the rules have changed. Now you no longer have to have made the greatest contribution to British Art in the past 12 months, but only an 'outstanding' one. And now it's artists only, and just those under 50.
So the prize doesn't have to go to the old established artists like Lucian Freud (1989), Henry Moore or Francis Bacon, for lifetime achievement because most people already know about them anyway. Instead it can focus on younger talent, ensuring new exciting work gets seen and talked about by the public, the art critics and the dealers.
The jackpot!
Channel 4 brought media-savvy to the Prize. They also doubled the money, gave television coverage to the award ceremony, and put a much bigger emphasis on the exhibition of the shortlisted artists' work at the Tate.
It was after this that the Turner Prize really found its footing. Now it's a massive occasion that everyone knows about. And most people now also know that contemporary British Art can be strange things like unmade beds or light bulbs.
The best of British?
The first Turner Prize upset a lot of people. The winner was the painter, Malcolm Morley (1984), who was born in London but hadn't lived in Britain for more than 25 years. The jury was recognising his retrospective exhibition held at the Whitechapel Gallery in London, but most people thought he was more American than British and shouldn't have been considered.
Since then, there have been many more artists who don't quite fit what one critic called the 'Colonel Blimp flag-waving' version of genuine British art. These include Paula Rego (1989, born in Portugal), Anish Kapoor (1991, born in India), Mona Hatoum (1995, Palestinian, from Lebanon) and Vong Phaophanit (1993, Laotian, from France), among many others.
When Nicholas Serota announced the 2000 shortlist he defended the Tate's inclusive take on what it means to be British: 'The culture here is richer because we have never confined the idea of British art to those who have been born in this country. At a time when there is a great deal of public debate about migrants, we should be in the forefront of those pointing out the huge contribution they have made to this country.'
|
