Northern Art Prize

I've really enjoyed the Northern Art Prize as an exhibition the last few years. It's brought some excellent art to Leeds and it's a welcome change to see that much space given to contemporary artists at Leeds Art Gallery. This year I particularly liked Matt Stokes' work, despite it being a bit try-hard-cool, and Pavel's stuff.

I was quite surprised at the negative review that it got in the Guardian in January - I would have thought it'd be up their street.


Whilst I think it's overly harsh it does pick up on something that was maybe niggling me about the prize - the fact that it is a prize. It seems the whole Turner Prize comparison is making people approach the exhibition cynically. It also reinforces the idea that artists in the north need to work in the same way, or have the same structures in place, that artists in London do. Are we competitive, money-driven careerists just the same as anywhere? Where's the Northern solidarity, not to mention self-depreciating modesty?

I wonder if maybe the Northern Art Prize would do more for the region and the city if it just dropped the prize tag altogether? If the idea was that it'd get more visitors and generate more press interest from being a prize then it'd be interesting to know if that's been the case.

Also it makes Leeds look desperate to be seen on an equal pegging with London. If Leeds is going to be recognised as a great place for art, that's not going to happen by copying other places, we need our own thing that represents 'Northern art values' (whatever they might be). I don't know what that would look like though, anyone got any ideas?

I agree with you about the whole prize thing.
Why do we need an Art Prize?
Can someone explain how this helps develop the artistic community in the North?
Rather than develop a community it may just develop competition and secrecy.

I think the guardian articles about the Northern Art prize are worth reading...

"If the Northern Art prize has aspirations to become a regional equivalent of the Turner, it still has some way to go in terms of presentation. No one appears to have proof-read the catalogue, in which whole paragraphs of gibberish are printed twice, and ludicrous claims advanced in support of the works' significance."


And I think this touchs upon why I have an issue with the Northern Art Prize. I enjoy the exhibitions, it has been a great opportunity to see interesting work (I especially liked the bata-ville film and installation by Somewhere) and the opportunity to see artists who wouldn't otherwise talk in Leeds Art Gallery. I also think the way the shows are curated is rather refreshing. But what I find irritating is the way it is promoted / written about - Overblown claims very rarely meet your expectations. Which can make people who are new to art feel as though they are missing something.

"I really don't think that we should be put in a position where art is treated as a competitive sport," he said. "It is good to see so many people here and so much interest, but perhaps equally a reason to despair."

Pavel Buchler

Link to the guardian review should anyone want care to comment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/jan/07/northern-art-prize-review

What is the Competition for? If solely a mutual back slapping for artists working in the north then i guess it achieves it's aim but as a regular punter i felt it lacked the scale or impact to arouse much passion in the public which in my view should be at least part of the aim. A greater variety of exibited pieces might have helped given the huge space.

Specifically Buchler's small items seemed rather lost in a big blank space (tho interesting to read his comments - guess he would not agree) also video installations in the time of you tube seem increasingly irrelevant and was interesting to see on both my visits there were many more people viewing the existing collections than the works by shortlisted artists. Am afraid i didn't really understand why a video piece of the Austin punk scene should have much impact in a city with such a strong reputation for experiencing exactly that in the flesh - it just seemed tame by comparison.

There is life and vibrancy in work by northern artists, i fully support the concept that modern art can engage people outside of london and that generating a bit of publicity with an annual prize benefits that aim if it can engage people - we need big bold brave concepts that provoke opinion as well as subtler, smaller clever pieces.

And completely agree on points above about the bumf being overblown - over use of the phrase "exploring the relationship between..." does nothing to engage people either intellectually or emptionally. What might be really refreshing and innovative would be some supporting commentary with typically Yorkshire candour:

"Here are some pencils, if you look right carefully you can just about see the point..."