Turner Prize 2011: Martin Boyce, Scottish Arist, Wins For 'Do Words Have Voices'

LONDON — A Scottish artist whose work harks back to the innovators of 20th century Modernism has won this year's Turner Prize – Britain's best-known and most provocative art award.

Martin Boyce, 44, on Monday collected the 25,000-pound ($41,000) prize, awarded annually to a British artist under 50.

Boyce was nominated for his solo exhibition in Zurich, which included a stark installation compared to an indoor park complete with paper leaves. The jury praised Boyce for his contribution to contemporary artists' interest in historic modernism, and said he developed and found new directions using his knowledge of the field.

Boyce's installation "confirmed the consistency of his work while opening up a new sense of poetry," prize organizers said in a statement.

"It's about passing through the space and the space between the sculptures as much as the sculptures themselves," Boyce said about his work. On receiving the award, he said: "It's amazing, I'm shocked. I really didn't expect it."

He was the bookmakers' favorite to win the award, which was presented by photographer Mario Testino.

Three other shortlisted artists – the sculptor Karla Black, video artist Hilary Lloyd and painter George Shaw – won 5,000 pounds each.

The Turner Prize, named after 19th-century landscape painter J.M.W. Turner, was established in 1984 to honor younger British artists.

The prize often sparks controversy about the value of modern art and attracts bets from art-loving gamblers. Past winners include "Brit Art" upstarts such as transvestite potter Grayson Perry, dung-daubing painter Chris Ofili and shark pickler Damien Hirst.

An exhibition showcasing the shortlisted entries is held at the BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art in the northeastern English town of Gateshead. It was just the second time in the prize's 27-year history that the prize-giving ceremony and exhibition had been held outside London.

___

Online:

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/

Comments

[Tom Hendricks]

12:32 PM on 12/06/2011

Lots of comments on art here .... Oh wait none but me. Hey modern art are you getting the message? Your Ivory Tower art has no relevance to the rest of us - and it touches no chord in our hearts - and it's not intellectually challenging either. Weird art is easy. You put a strip of raw bacon across an expensive violin - but it's not great art! When art gets the message, or the new art just overturns it, art will be great again, and it will take it's place with the other arts as a major source of joy that it has been in the past before modern art became the salon art it is now.

[chrysostomos]

01:42 PM on 12/07/2011

Again what do you mean by modern art? Are you referring to historical Modernisms like abstract expressionism, cubism- your reference to bacon and violins suggests surrealism. Or are you talking about contemporary art? The problem with trying to make the type of sweeping generalizations and pronouncements about aesthetic production in any historical period is that they cannot account for the diversity of art being produced and often end up being empty words that mean very little. "Ivory Tower art" ... "weird art"... "new art" ...and in the case of "salon art" are downright misleading- salon art actually refers to a specific mode of art production in France during the late18th-early 20th century which was organized around art academies and the exhibitions that they would organize (these were referred to as salons). NOw if your using the term to describe the contemporary scene it would be helpful to explain how exactly you use the term and why it should be viewed negatively.

[chrysostomos]

02:00 PM on 12/07/2011

Finally, if you are referring to the way that art is commodified, to a certain extent I'm with you. The commercial scene suffers from a series of excesses that often prevents the public from appreciating the art on its own terms. And there is indeed alot of great stuff being produced by artists across many different disciplines- here are some artists that I recommend: Gerhardt Richter- late career painter whose photorealist paintings are both aesthetically captivating and intellectually challenging. Jeff Wall- large scale photographer whose beautiful imagery appears effortless but which is meticulously composed through a time consuming process akin to shooting a movie, Christian Marclay- interdisciplinary artists who has become well known for his video montages. His most recent entitled The Clock is a 24 hour video that presents thousands of clips from films that show clocks or people talking about a specific time of day. He edited them together in such a way that the video works as a functional clock.(I can't think of many things more functional than time pieces). Then there's artists who are more politically engaged and trying to shed light on the excesses of the institutional establishment of the art world (museums, galleries...) Hans Haacke- an early practitioner of institutional critique continues to produce quite interesting work. The list goes on- from performance art, to video art, digital art and new media- there's already great stuff out there, the fun is finding it.

[Tom Hendricks]

11:42 AM on 12/08/2011

What art from your list that I'm familiar with, I really don't like at all. Speaking of conceptual art (dada without the humor, or jokes without the punchline) have you seen the video that uses conceptual art to end it and oppose it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WneXAHfuvwc

[Tom Hendricks]

12:29 AM on 12/06/2011

The bigger news is the art movement that opposes what modern art has sunk to. Modern art is neither modern nor art (or at least not very good art) anymore. Here are some major problems:
1. Cold 2. Disjointed 3. Can't communicate it's message 4.Weird 5.Elitist 6. Technically poor if there is technique at all 7. Pompous and inflated, often takes up a room 8. Non functional, not useful, not integrated into life 9 No breath or scope.

[chrysostomos]

01:29 PM on 12/07/2011

You make some very broad and sweeping statements about the state of art that are a bit vague and don't really say much about specific art practices- It would be helpful to provide examples of the type of art you have in mind- as well as maybe indicate what type of art you would single out for praise. If your referring to the piece in the article then I wonder if you might specify what it is exactly about the work that fails.

[Tom Hendricks]

01:40 PM on 12/07/2011

Those points are very specific. This work is cold disjointed, can't communicate, weird, elitist, technically poor, pompous and inflated, non functional, and no real scope.
But for more, please see this art manifesto http://tinyurl.com/38a5txu