1984 - 1990  |  1991 - 1996  |  1997 - 2001  |  2002 - 2005

History 1984 - 1990

Just what is the Turner Prize for? The early years of the Prize, from its beginnings in 1984 to its sudden (temporary) disappearance in 1990, saw intense debate about exactly how a prize for contemporary visual art should be organised.

One of the first issues was the naming of the Prize. Many people were at a loss to know what it had to do with the early nineteenth century artist JMW Turner, and there were conflicting views about whether or not he would have approved. The founders of the Prize, the Tate Gallery's Patrons of New Art, had in fact chosen Turner because he'd wanted to establish a prize for young artists and because, despite being controversial in his own day, he was now seen as one of the greatest British artists.

Turner Prize Exhibition, 1984, featuring work by (left to right) Gilbert & George, Richard Deacon, Richard Long and Malcolm Morley

For much of the early years, there was widespread feeling that the whole idea of a race and a winner was demeaning to art. There was particular concern about the shortlist, since all but one would be seen as losers in a race they hadn't chosen to enter. There was also uncertainty about what the prize was for: was it to acknowledge the work of Britain's most reputable senior artists? Or should it highlight new, up-and-coming talent? And if you had both types of artist on a shortlist, how could you decide between them?

There was also some controversy about who was funding the prize, as the first sponsor remained anonymous. Suspicions were raised - was there some hidden commercial interest pulling the strings?

The first winner - Malcolm Morley - was unpopular, mainly because he had lived in the US since 1958 and he didn't even turn up to receive his award. The second winner, Howard Hodgkin, met with widespread approval.

Malcolm Morley Farewell to Crete 1984 © Malcolm Morley  Photo: Tate Photography Private collection

Howard Hodgkin Son et Lumière 1983-4 © Howard Hodgkin  Photo: Courtesy Anthony d'Offay Gallery, London Private collection

1987 saw some initial changes in response to criticisms. The scale of the exhibition was increased, and the rubric was changed so that the winner was not the person who had made 'the greatest' contribution to art in Britain, but one who'd made an 'outstanding' contribution, making clear that the Prize wasn't automatically awarded to Britain's greatest living artist, but to someone who'd made the most significant impact in the previous years. And a new sponsor was found: the first sponsor (who turned out to be Oliver Prenn, a member of the Patrons of New Art, rather than anyone more sinister) was replaced by an American investment company.

Tony Cragg On the Savannah 1988 Bronze, 2250 x 4000 x 3000 mm © Tony Cragg Photo: Tate Photography Tate. Purchased 1988

In 1988 the arrival of a new director at the Tate, Nicholas Serota, brought a re-think of the Prize's terms and conditions. From now on it would only be given to artists (in previous years anyone working in the arts could be nominated, including curators, critics and administrators - Serota himself had been nominated in 1986 for the re-opening of the Whitechapel Art Gallery in London). More significantly, dissatisfaction with the combative selection process led to the annual shortlist being dropped, and with it the exhibition of work by shortlisted artists. Instead, the jury simply announced a winner (Tony Cragg), who was offered a solo show at the Tate the following year.

Richard Long White Water Line 1990 © Courtesy of the artist and Haunch of Venison, London Photo: Tate Photography

Unpopular as the shortlisting process had been, its abandonment caused an even greater outcry. Critics and public alike hated being deprived of the opportunity to compare works, to disapprove of the selection, and the fun of trying to predict who would - or wouldn't - win. So in 1989 the shortlist made a comeback, in a slightly modified form: the jury reviewed the art shown in the last twelve months and 'commended' seven names, before awarding the prize to one: Richard Long.

But still the Sunday Times argued that the prize was 'fatally trapped' between those who thought the whole notion of a race and a winner was demeaning to art, and those who argued that a competition was the best way to attract widespread interest, but that the Tate was half-hearted about attracting media coverage. And in the following year, the bankruptcy of the sponsor, Drexel Burnham Lambert, forced the prize to be cancelled. Some feared that it would never surface again.

On to 1991 - 1996