Andrew Graham-Dixon helped to judge this year's Turner Prize. He found it most revealing
WHEN I accepted an invitation to sit on the jury of this year's Turner Prize, awarded tonight, I never dreamed that I would find out so much about myself. It has been a revelatory experience, but not an entirely happy one. During the months that have elapsed since the jury released its short-list of four possible win-ners, in July, I have had to come to terms with some unsavoury aspects of my own character.
I now know that I am one of the prime collaborators in a conspiracy between critics, curators and art dealers - a conspiracy dedicated to the shameless promotion of a group of young artists whose work might have a certain fashionable stylishness but is without serious merit. I have been ruthless in my determination to see these artists do well since, having openly declared my admiration for their work in the pages of this newspaper, and having co- curated an exhibition in which two of them were included, I realise that my own career and credibility depend on their future success.
Because of this, I and one of my fellow Turner Prize jurors, Norman Rosenthal (who has demonstrated his own allegiance to two of these artists by including their work in a large exhibition of international contem-porary art which he curated earlier this year) rode roughshod over the other members of the jury and insisted that the names of three of our favoured choices got on to the short-list. This is why Rachel Whiteread, Ian Davenport and Fiona Rae, all artists under the age of 30, have come to be considered for the pounds 20,000 prize.
When the jury met in July to decide on its short-list, I dismissed the claims of...
