A Turner for the worse

It's that time of year again. The Telegraph reports that the nominations for the 2006 Turner prizer are in. This year they include:

- Abstract zigzags on canvas by a woman who "begins every piece with no idea what she is about to paint and says they symbolise nothing at all"

- Sculptures resembling the "before" picture on "The biggest loser", and seemingly made from papier mache.

- Posters with quasi-zen statements - the artist is apparantly "exploring systems of belief both secular and spiritual"

Now don't get me wrong. I have every respect for these people. They've managed to con the gullible public (at least the art-buying sector) into thinking that what they do is worthwhile and, presumably, worth huge sums of money. Not bad work if you can get it.

I just want to know how they do it!! Being an (amateur) artist myself I'd love to be able to slap a huge price tag on a few pieces, sit back and watch the cash roll in. I just need to know how one gets to that stage. Is it pure balls? Does price=value for money to the art-consumer looking for an investment? How does it work?

Answers on a postcard please.

Categories: Turner prize, Art, Tate