The Turner Prize, Late Turner And Efficiency

I've realised that my days of spending at least five hours in every "major" exhibition (this was a habit of mine during my foundation course) are long, long gone. I don't trust curators with my time anymore. I went to see the Turner Prize and basically walked past everything time-based; I didn't feel as though I had a reason to give them a chance - it would be gambling, but with time instead of money. This means that although I'm supposed to be an "art student," my opinion fell neatly into one of the three categories that the guest's comments on the notice board outside the exhibition seemed to be split into.

1. My five year old could do that.
2. Ugh, it was all film.
3. OH MY GOD YOU GUYS, why are all these comments knocking time-based media when it's a perfectly valid art form?!?! Film is my liiiiiiife. :'(

I guess what I can take away from this is the idea that I really haven't looked into why people use film: what's it supposed to do? IS it supposed to do anything? Then again, I'm really valuing this newfound EFFICIENCY; I've stopped forcing myself to observe and analyse everything until it's torture.

I then visited the Late Turner exhibition which was pretty packed, presumably with all the people who left the (almost empty) Turner Prize saying, 'What rubbish - they shouldn't call it the "TURNER Prize..."' I made another observation regarding efficiency. It's more an opinion than an observation.

Whalers at Sea at Sunset

Paying attention to colour and composition is a whole lot more important than sinking hours and hours into a piece of work. EFFICIENCY.

(The work I'm making now is about pouring time into something to illustrate inefficiency.)