It appears that the winner of this year’s Turner Prize is a female Jockanese ginger, one soi-disant Susan ‘Philipsz’.

The general theme of the ‘intros’ by the establishment luvvies was that “art matters”, whatever its apparent merit. Does it really? Why does ‘yartz’ not face the same rigours of the commercial market like everything else, apart from public services and anything else arranged by The State. If it’s cr*p, then nobody will pay to see/listen to/’experience’ it and the corpse will die a well-deserved, quiet death rather than be kept alive by taxpayers’ money.


Author: O Zangado

Just loping around. Extremely fond of roast boar in particular, meat in general and cooking on the barbie. Fish is good too.

10 thoughts on “Yartz”

  1. I remember seeing one of these prize-winning exhibits at the Tate many years ago – when the friend I was with pulled me off part of it. It was a collection of wooden items – chairs and such – and I was standing on the wooden spoon scattered on the floor with other small pieces. It didn’t strike me as “art” then. I could do such a display in my kitchen. Would lots of people pay money to visit it? And if they didn’t,would that mean it was not “art”?

  2. My point, Sheona, is that ‘yartz’ has somehow morphed into part of the Establishment, which means that unending taxpayer funding is always available whatever the merit of the ‘yart’ and whatever the current health of the public exchequer.


  3. One of the “installations” is a piano stool stacked on a chair.

    The winning entry consists of an empty room where art lovers can listen to Susan reciting her laments. Lamentable, I call it.

  4. I have yet to understand modern art, so as far as I am concerned, most of it isn’t Art.
    BUT, I do think yartz generally, as I understand them, ballet, opera, theatre and “proper” paintings should be subsidised. It is really not about commercialism or shouldn’t be, but who decides?

  5. Ditto Araminta – a canvas painted black is not worthy of being hung up in a ‘art’ gallery, let alone the said gallery paying many thousands of dollars for the said piece of junk…

    I do enjoy looking at what I consider art, but I really find that the value placed on some of these items to be quite obscene.

  6. Art, of any kind, should never be state subsidised – well, not until there is no poverty in the world. Sponsorship by rich individuals, patrons, if you like, is fine. But if my taxes are to go anywhere, they can go into health, education or genuine welfare; not into supporting a bunch of non-productive layabouts. How about the Vatican coughing up a few billions? They’d hardly notice it.

  7. Hi OZ. I suppose an ‘installation’ is something which isn’t a drawing, a painting or a sculpture. With modern art it could be anything, really!

    I like some modern art, the stuff that really makes an impact on your senses or gives you a view or a perception that you could never have got any other way. But a lot of it is cobblers and I include in that, your Jackson Pollock’s and a lot of Damien Hirst’s stuff – although he employs a lot of Glos people so I won’t knock him too viciously. 🙂

    The artists I absolutely adore – Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Rodin, Klimt, Bernini, Millais, Monet, Turner, etc etc are mostly figurative.

  8. My godfather happens to be a painter celebrated in modern artistic circles and my parents are custodians of several inheritances, ahem, early originals of his work. The problem is that the paintings need explaining before you have any chance of guessing the subject matter, but once you know they are fantastic.


Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s