An irrelevant bourgeois ritual: this year’s Turner prize shortlist is the soppiest ever

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Critique of the 2023 Turner Prize Shortlist Highlights Disconnect from Contemporary Issues"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The Turner Prize, once a battleground for provocative art and cultural debates, has seen a shift towards earnestness that many critics believe has dulled its edge. The latest shortlist is described as the 'soppiest yet,' with two of the nominated artists being traditional painters, a rarity in contemporary art circles. Mohammed Sami and Zadie Xa are among the nominees, but their inclusion raises questions about their impact on the art world. While Sami's landscape paintings address themes of war and migration with emotional depth and skill, Xa's work is critiqued for its lack of originality and shock value. Critics argue that while Sami’s talent is undeniable, his art does not provoke the same level of controversy that characterized past Turner Prize nominees, leading to a sense of disappointment about the shortlist's potential to engage or challenge audiences.

Moreover, the other nominees, including Nnena Kalu and Rene Matić, reflect a broader trend in the selection process that favors globalist perspectives over local relevance. Kalu’s colorful sculptures are seen as lacking the ability to captivate or challenge viewers, while Matić’s photographs offer a glimpse into contemporary British life but fail to evoke strong emotional responses. The jury’s focus on international artists, such as Xa, who embodies a multicultural narrative, seems disconnected from the realities of British society today. This disconnection signals a deeper issue regarding the Turner Prize’s relevance in the current art landscape, as it risks becoming an 'empty bourgeois ritual' rather than a meaningful commentary on the state of art and society. The exhibition's upcoming location in Bradford further emphasizes this disconnect, as it contrasts with the liberal elite that the shortlisted artists represent. Critics hope for a shift back towards art that truly reflects contemporary issues and resonates with the public, particularly through artists like Matić who offer insights into the lives of everyday people in Britain.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article critiques the Turner Prize shortlist for this year, describing it as overly sentimental and lacking the boldness of past nominations. It contrasts the current state of art with the more provocative controversies of the 1990s, suggesting that contemporary selections have become more risk-averse, aligning with current socio-political ideologies. The author expresses disappointment in the inclusion of specific artists, particularly Zadie Xa, while praising Mohammed Sami for his poignant work that addresses war and migration.

Cultural Commentary

The article reflects a broader critique of the art world, suggesting that the seriousness of current cultural issues has stifled creativity and innovation. By emphasizing the perceived decline in the boldness of artwork, the author is calling for a return to more provocative and boundary-pushing forms of artistic expression. This commentary indicates a desire for art to resume its role as a challenger of societal norms rather than a reflection of them.

Public Perception

The article aims to evoke a sense of nostalgia for a time when art was more controversial and discussions around it were lively and engaging. The author seems to be appealing to an audience that values bold artistic statements over political correctness. This may resonate particularly with those who feel that the current cultural climate suppresses individual expression, fostering a divide between traditionalists and contemporary artists.

Omissions and Hidden Agendas

While the article focuses on the art world, it may overlook the broader implications of how art interacts with societal issues. By concentrating on individual artists and their perceived shortcomings, the author might be diverting attention from systemic problems in the art industry, such as funding, representation, and the commercialization of art. This could suggest an agenda to critique not just the Turner Prize but the institutions that govern artistic recognition.

Manipulative Elements

There is a notable tone of elitism in the language used, which may alienate those who appreciate the current artistic trends. The critique of specific artists could be seen as a form of gatekeeping, where only certain styles and ideologies are deemed worthy of recognition. This could manipulate public perception by framing the conversation around art in a way that prioritizes certain aesthetics over others.

Trustworthiness of the Article

The article presents a subjective viewpoint, heavily relying on personal opinions rather than a balanced analysis of the artworks or the artists involved. While it raises valid points about the nature of contemporary art, the emotional language and dismissive tone towards certain artists may detract from its overall credibility. Readers should approach the article with an understanding of its opinionated nature and consider multiple perspectives on the Turner Prize.

In conclusion, the article reflects a specific viewpoint on the state of contemporary art, particularly in relation to the Turner Prize. It suggests a desire for more daring artistic expressions, while also critiquing the current cultural climate. However, its subjective nature and potential biases mean that readers should remain critical of the arguments presented.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Remember when controversy was fun? If not, that’s because you’re too young. But back in the 1990s, my child, Britain got itself in hilarious knots about conceptual art, the readymade and whether a pickled shark or elephant dung can be art, with the Turner prize as battleground. It was a culture war but with laughs, because no one’s identity was at stake and it wasn’t likeBrian Sewellwas going to become prime minister and have Rachel Whiteread jailed.

It is by embracing the earnestness of today’s high-stakes culture wars that theTurner prizehas lost its edge, the art getting more careful as the ideologies loom larger. This year’s shortlist is the soppiest yet. Two of the artists nominated are painters. Painters, I ask you! This makes some sense of the shortlist announcement taking place on JMW Turner’s 250th birthday. But as painters go, do Mohammed Sami and Zadie Xa (who also creates bland installations) compare with the boldness of Mr Turner? Neither is pushing back the boundaries of what a painting might be, or redefining this art for the 21st century in scale, freedom, audacity.

I honestly don’t know why Xa has been shortlisted. She’s one of those artists whose mildly impressive but pointless work you see at every art fair and Biennial. Her figurative fantasy paintings framed by rambling, decorative installations mix up the myths of Vancouver and Korea, but the lack of rawness or shock or surprise is stultifying.

Sami is in another league, and the quality artist on the shortlist. His large landscape paintings meditate on the horrors of war and agonies of enforced migration with a disconcerting poetry rooted in an impressionistic mistiness. You look at a blue sky over water, or trees above a rocky cliff, tenderly painted with whiffs of Monet and Cézanne, but then notice a refugee camp through the woods, or starbursts of ordnance in the Iraq sky.

Surely he’s a shoo-in to get the Turner prize. He is not only the best artist on this list but a real international talent whose seriousness and subtlety are obvious. So why am I not more thrilled? I suppose because this is good for you. Sami is important but he’s not shocking. His art embraces skill instead of setting out to scandalise or create a new language. I would like it more if it had no moral value at all.

So what about the non-painters? Will they provoke us with … balls of coloured paper and wool? That’s what Nnena Kalu makes, hanging her multicoloured tangles of streamers and strands in poetical arrangements. These craftily wrought sculptures won’t scare, or amaze, anyone. Kalu’s work has a familiar appearance, and that’s not just because she’s been doing this stuff for two decades before recently getting recognition. It’s because this kind of post-minimalist, found yet handworked sculpture has dried-out, attenuated roots in art movements that started way back in the 1960s. Nice, academic, dull.

The artist who makes most sense as a Turner candidate, even firing the old flames of raw controversial reality, is Rene Matić, whose photographs portray intimate moments with family and friends – and report on skinhead subculture. Sadly these close, fragmentary images don’t have great emotional pull on a stranger – it’s a bit like looking at someone else’s family snapshots. To make that work takes more flamboyance and poignancy than Matić shows. Rene’s not a laugh. Yet there’s something in their work that you don’t get from the others: a glimpse of life in Britain right now.

I think this goes to the heart of this Turner shortlist’s fragility. It is determinedly globalist, reflecting a jury made up exclusively of curators who have shortlisted the kind of stuff they see all the time on the international circuit – Xa, for instance, has been shortlisted for work at the Sharjah Biennial, in the United Arab Emirates.

Sign up toArt Weekly

Your weekly art world round-up, sketching out all the biggest stories, scandals and exhibitions

after newsletter promotion

Clearly the jury are striking a blow against Brexity Little Englanders by shortlisting an artist from Vancouver whose art reclaims her Korean heritage – but who meets the rules by being resident in the UK. If Xa was a better artist this would be a more powerful gesture.

But this shortlist’s lack of connection with the realities of contemporary Britain is just another way to dig the ailing Turner prize deeper into irrelevance and empty bourgeois ritual. This year’s exhibition will be in Bradford, far from the liberal elite metropolis this shortlist reeks of. So we’ll go to Bradford, applaud these right-minded artists, approve of art without borders and ignore the rising vote for Reform outside this introspective event.

Obviously there’s good in all these artists but not enough to make the Turner matter again. Only one gives you a glimpse of what’s going on in the streets, as opposed to the Biennials. I hope they win. Speak for England, Rene!

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian