The Turner Prize is a relatively new phenomenon in a nation where historically the primary art form is literature. It is also significant because it is unashamedly focuses on avant-gardist art. Every year four emerging artists are nominated on the basis of 'an outstanding exhibition or other presentation of their work in the twelve months preceding 31 May' and their works are exhibited at the Tale Britain. Towards the end of the exhibition a winner is announced. Due to its progressive nature the exhibition never ceases to attract the wrath not only of the tabloids but even broadsheet newspapers. But this inevitable invective only serves to make the prize a more interesting and entertaining event. Last year the winner was Keith Tyson, and I think he was the right choice. The other three nominees were Fiona Banner, Liam Gillick and Catherine Yass.
On the surface, this was an exhibition of works by four very different artists, but dig a little deeper and, when one begins to map the artists' work onto the still pervasive and dominant discourse of minimal conceptualism, there is a meshwork of connections. Only Tyson resists being framed by this grand narrative. Possibly because of this his work, at least his graphic work, stands out, abjuring the elegance of minimal conceptualism for a chaotic intersection of multiple references and media. He says his work stems from his interest in maps, charts, databases and other information systems.
Having just completed a book on Imants Tillers1, I find the overlap between Tyson's and Tillers' work unavoidable. Like Tillers, Tyson is informed by a poetic interpretation of scientific ideas evident in themes such as chance, entropy, time, and