Cy Worthington: Tell me about how you ended up being a Turner Prize juror and your life in the art world up to that point.

Greville Worthington: At the time I was on the acquisitions committee of something called the Patrons of New Art, an initiative where supporters of the Tate donated a small amount of money each year that went towards buying an artwork for the Tate’s collection. One of the works I acquired was Matthew Barney’s Ottoshaft, a very astute purchase because then he was a relatively unknown artist. I think because of that I caught the eye of Nick Serota (then Director of Tate). I’d also been involved with the Henry Moore Foundation in Leeds and had started curating exhibitions at Saint Paulinus in North Yorkshire, and felt there was an attempt to get jurors who were based all over the country, not just in London.

CW: And once you know you’re a juror, you’re told you have a year to look around and decide who you want to put forward. Were your artist and gallerist friends hounding you?

GW: We were actually told to keep it under our hats that we were jurors to avoid that. Early on we were invited to a meeting with Nick and a few other people from the Tate. There, we were given an overview of the Turner Prize, its history, and the criteria for that year’s prize, which was set out very clearly for us. We each had to find seven artists we wanted to nominate. In terms of the art we chose to look at we were given a lot of freedom. But they made it clear that in order to award the prize to somebody, all the jurors had to feel that the artist had made an outstanding contribution to art that year. So there was no point going to the studios of your friends and putting them forward, because unless they’d had museum shows and a level of exhibition profile throughout that year, they wouldn’t qualify.

CW: Did the Tate give you a list of things to see?

GW: Again, from memory it was quite free. Ultimately it was up to me to get around, see things and take notes, which I did extensively. At that point I’d been working for Ian Hamilton Finlay, and so was spending a lot of time in Scotland and seeing Scottish art. I didn’t think any of the other jurors were going to be fishing around in Scotland for artists, so I thought it was something different I could bring to the table. There was one artist called Ross Sinclair that I was very keen on. Not only was he in the band The Soup Dragons but also his visual art was, to my mind, very interesting. He didn’t end up getting nominated, but that’s the nature of the process. We had to whittle down a list of twenty-eight names to four, so if an artist’s work isn’t appreciated by every member of the jury, they lose out. There were definite common denominators, though. One of the most important exhibitions of that year, which all the jurors went to see, was Liam Gillick at Whitechapel. It was his first big show in Europe, and it was already clear that he was a very important artist. He’d been looking closely at the working practices of Volvo factory to think about the structure of how we are organised, asking the question, Are we empowered or not, you know, which was quite exciting. Catherine Yass was another one. I’d seen an incredible exhibition at the German Gymnasium in Kings Cross where she did a show of films of a tight-rope walker walking between two high-rise buildings in Glasgow.

CW: So, once your research period is over, do you all just meet up again and try to hammer out a shortlist?

GW: There was a jury meeting about halfway through the year but I couldn’t attend it because I was on holiday with you! I think that was just to check in and see how everyone was getting on.

The final meeting was to finalise the shortlist. We were asked to send our lists of seven to the Tate in advance so they could source images and publications, and when we arrived on the day there were piles of books on the tables to enhance our discussion. We went through everything very methodically, taking turns to speak, looking at the resources. Eventually we landed on Fiona Banner, Liam Gillick, Keith Tyson and Catherine Yass. It was a really lovely and enriching process.

CW: Do you think those four nominees reflected something about the art world at the time?

GW: It’s interesting to look back because at that moment the heat of the YBAs had just begun to dwindle, and you got the feeling that everyone was searching for the next crop of artists to take over. It’s certainly telling that the artist who went on to win it in 2002 was Keith Tyson, because not only was his work very engaging but he was an excellent communicator of his ideas. That came across when I went to a lecture he’d given at the Henry Moore Institute. I think the art world was looking for people with strong ideas. In a way Liam Gillick was an early and central figure of second-generation conceptual artists, and he thought about received ideas in a very novel and stimulating way. It was also important to have a gender balance amongst the nominees because the prize had been criticised up to that point for being male-dominated.

CW: Once the nominees are announced, they then have a certain amount of time to create new work for the Turner Prize show. How much does what the artists do in that time influence the jury’s final decision?

GW: I think one of the difficulties of the whole process is that you’re actually wanting to award the prize for a show that the members of the public who see the Turner Prize exhibition most likely haven’t seen, i.e. the show that got them nominated. Because of that, there can be a disconnect between how the jurors operate and what the public feel. That isn’t a problem necessarily so long as it’s clear why a prize is being awarded, and then the public can make their mind up about what they think of the artists. But it’s about striking a balance, and I think Nick Serota helped us with that.

CW: How did you feel people responded to the show, and to Keith Tyson being the winner?

GW: What was great was that the Culture Minister under Tony Blair (Kim Howells) called the work ‘cold, mechanical conceptual bullshit,’ which made the headlines and brought good attention to the show. One of Fiona Banner’s works used language to describe the imagery of a porn film, and that started a big debate about whether it was pornographic. So there was enough spectacle and controversy for the show to do its job culturally. On the night of the award ceremony everyone was quite tetchy, especially because it was being broadcast on Channel 4. Each of the jurors were interviewed by Matthew Collings, Nick Serota spoke, and then Daniel Libeskind presented the prize to Keith Tyson. It was all quite methodical. I remember going to the pub afterwards and bumping into Liam Gillick. I said to him, almost apologetically, ‘you know, it was a very close call, and we really did look at everyone’s work very thoroughly,’ and he said, ‘yes. . . I would expect you to have done that.’ As I said, I think the clarity of Tyson’s ideas in his work edged it for him. 

Tony Cragg at Castle Howard is open until 22nd September 2024. For more information, click here.