Turner Prize exhibition 2006
Reasons why Rebecca Warren should win the Turner this year: her work has been so successful that it has started to stand for success and Warren-ism when in fact it stands for doubt, uncertainty and tentativeness. She has put loads of her brilliant vitrines full (well, hardly full, but you know what I mean) of bits of crap, dust and hair in the Tate show rather than just relying on her figurative sculptures. She's a woman, we need more women to win. She makes great plinths (eat her dirt, Gareth Jones). She is not afraid to take risks by taking something that fell off the side of a sculpture and sticking it on the wall (I once saw her exhibiting the boards that she had been using to stand here clay figures on). It's her turn. Mark Titchner is useless and increasingly megalomaniacal (Rotoreliefs??). Tomma Abts must be rich already from selling paintings, and in fact they're a bit boring aren't they? And who's great idea was it to let Phil Collins build an office in the gallery? Puhlease.
Did you read mad Lynn barber in the Observer spilling the beans on her year as a Turner Prize judge? Apart from the measly £250 travel allowance, what was most notable was that Barber took no interest in the discourse surrounding art, and of course found that she was as ignorant at the end of the year as at the start. She should have spent her £250 on some magazine subscriptions. Hilariously, she also revealed herself to be somewhat racist (by assuming that only people with British sounding names were British, sorry Haluk, Zineb, Zarina, Ergin etc..) and also strangely parochial (she had never previously been east of Hackney or south of Bankside! Predictably she went looking for a painter and found Abts. Ah well. I found it rather sad that she didn't want to engage in the dialogue around art since that's where all the interesting stuff goes on. Consequently she ended up with the opinion that it's all a bit of a fix, when really she was simply not interested in taking part in conversation.