http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainm...ment_110671763
I agree with Maggy about Grayson and I 'aint even a potter.
Having seen a fair few Turner exhibition winners and entries over the years there are not many winning entries that, I would think, the general public would consider to be true works of art. In all honesty I find it difficult to find the "art" in many of the pieces of work and can understand Grayson's comment.
The art world seems to be fueled by 2 groups. There's, us who buy because we like stuff then there's the Investors, who buy only with an eye to making a profit.
Overlooking the artwork being produced in the less rarefied world out side the realms of the Turner Prize Circus are the Critics who in the main, IMHO, have their brains so far up their backsides that they wouldn't rate a piece of art unless it fits into their own narrow set of criteria and was created either by an artist willing to starve in a garret or one who they could claim to have discovered. < and breath>The Turner Jury seeming to hold a similar opinion to the latter group of critics having, over the years, ensured that those that enter work appear to be to be in the main those who seek to enter a race for notoriety in the hope that it will help them attract the critical acclaim that will gain them potential Patrons with seemingly bottomless pockets.
Sorry for the long post but no apologies for the rant. It felt good getting it off my chest.
