Only Authorised Nonconformism Is Permitted

Today I went around the Turner Prize nominees' exhibition. This is probably Britain's most famous annual art award. At the end of the exhibition there was a place where visitors could write their feedback onto hundreds of cards maked "comment" arranged in a grid pattern around three walls of the room. I treat this kind of art fairly light heartedly, but found one piece thought provoking and so wanted to write down a quick reflection on it. The comments cards, however, were quite small and had only about 4 ruled lines on them. To get around this limitation I simply turned the card over and was able to write out my full reflection on the blank rear. I pinned it back up on the wall but when I glanced back, a minute later, one of the gallery staff was removing it. All the other cards had been filled in on the front side of the headed cards, and they clearly didn't like my one breaking their ordered array. But isn't this ironic that, in an exhibition of art which is in large part about challenging conventions and conformity, my tiny piece of self-expression against the mold was immediately squashed. I violated the ordained layout and my voice was unacceptable, unlike the exhibiting artists who were being paid and honoured for making far more blatant challenges to social norms. It seems that only authorised nonconformity is permitted.

The comment I was trying to make concerned Langland & Bell's installation "NGO" about post-war Afghanistan. Their imagery of NGO signs and names was very familiar from my time in central Africa (and Iraq to a lesser extend, although organisations no longer want to advertise their presence there). The implication of the work seemed to be that the proliferation of NGOs was a hindrance rather than a help, and focused attention on their little subculture rather than the real human needs of the country. Certainly there is a real danger that NGOs become restricted by a particular way of doing things, and there's a danger of waste and duplication, not to mention confusion, with so many mysteriously acronymed groups piling into fashionable disasters. However there is a counter argument, with which Langland & Bell don't seem to engage, that the variety of NGOs can result in creativity of response and a better chance that local concerns are met, instead of a situation where relief and development is delivered by some homogeneous entity.

Anyhow, I think art which stimulates a response is interesting and therefore Langlands & Bell get my vote for the Turner Prize this year. If you're in London go and have a look yourself and post up your views. And if you're worried I'm becoming pretentious and arty-farty, don't be, as the other thing I saw today was Alien vs. Predator. The catch phrase of the film "Whoever wins, we lose" sounds very much like what many of my Iraqi friends said during the war last year, and unfortunately they seem to have been correct.