03 October, 2006

judging the turner prize

Deuchar explained that our job was to go round shows for a year and choose the ones we wanted to nominate (he suggested we should each choose six), then meet again in May 2006 to hammer out the shortlist of four. The chosen artists would then have a few months to prepare their individual shows for the Tate and we would finally meet again in December 2006 to choose the winner.

It sounds simple but actually the rules are quite weird. The artists have to be under 50 and born in or living and working in Britain. The age cut-off is sensible enough, but how long do artists have to live here to qualify? Could they commute? And - this is the bit the public never understands - the artists have to be nominated for a particular show, not a body of work.

full article
ote it says "born in Britain" = which means that every British born Australian artist is eligible for consideration.

Q. H
ow many British Australian shows have ever been considered for this prize?

Yeah right
The age cut-off is sensible enough

Still discriminating against age. The brits are currently in the pr
ocess of introducing age discrimination legislation for the workplace. The same legislation that Australia has had since the seventies.

Mature age artists need n
ot apply.

No comments: