Yes, I am completely comfortable saying this as a graffiti dick hangs in the gallery of George Shaw paintings above this sentence. Yesterday, artist Martin Boyce took home Britain’s coveted Turner Prize: £25,000 ($39,220) and bragging rights for his abstract geometric hodgepodge that is, surely, poetic and all, but, not as good as George Shaw‘s urban decay landscapes. Don’t you cry “kitsch” at me. Here’s why.
Also shortlisted Karla Black and Hilary Lloyd. Now then.
Both Boyce and Shaw reference bygone movements, but Boyce’s “lyrically autumnal” “Modernist gardens” (his neon trees was better) just don’t hold up to Shaw’s neu-pastorial scenes of Britain’s cold, isolated streets, shuttered storefronts, shattered factories, graffitied walls and warm waves of slanted sun. I don’t favor “traditional” art one way or the other, but viscerally speaking, Shaw’s raw, brimming, moody, real…
Guardian critic/resident grumbler Jonathan Jones seems to think that as the only shortlisted painter, Shaw got shafted because his Britain is “too glum” and “a bit dour,” and so was Joy Division. Touché. What’s this moratorium on sad? A question remains though: Could Shaw’s loss resulted from the judges’ prejudiced tsk-tsk over graffiti dicks?
I never heard of either of them but from a quick look at their work on line i can see why they chose Boyce. Boyce is more conceptual and his work is referencing/ copying/ updating other artists like Dan Flavin and Calder. While Shaw is using enamel that is usually used for painting toy models, which yes is conceptual in a material sense, and his paintings look great, that kind of sincerity is under appreciated in today's art world.
Wow, awesome weblog format! How lengthy have you been blogging for? you made running a blog look easy. The overall look of your website is great, let alone the content material!