From the Turner to the kids.

Dea Birkett pokes about among Britain’s many art awards and wonders whether they’re worth the paper they’re written on

What difference does an award make? I recently met the winner of a very prestigious art award – one of the most prestigious in Britain. She was sitting in the corner of an obscure gallery, no bigger than my bedroom, in front of a few pieces of her work. She had curated, hung and was now front-of-housing her own exhibition. She pulled out a ring-binder, stuffed with neatly filed photographs of her paintings. ‘That’s the one that won the award,’ she said, pointing at a particularly striking example. She received the award just four years ago. I had never heard of her.

Perhaps this painter was the exception that proves the rule – winning an award can transform an artist’s or institution’s profile, attract new audiences to their work, and drive change and excellence in their particular field of artistic endeavour.

This is what happened to the Lightbox in Woking. A relatively small local museum, it wouldn’t have been at the top of the list of anyone’s best British museums until, in 2008, it won the biggest single arts prize in Britain – the Art Fund Prize – worth £100,000. Marilyn Scott, the Lightbox’s Director, says, ‘Winning an award raises profile almost instantly and can provide more PR coverage in a week than you have struggled for all year. For a young organisation, it places you up there with the serious players.’

But if winning an award causes a big splash, does it leave any ripples? Rosemary Ewles, who administers the Art Fund Prize, admits that though a Goliath in the arts awards world, the Art Fund Prize, ‘doesn’t spread good practice, but just points to a place that is doing well already’.

So beyond patting the back of the winner, what difference does it make? Ewles struggles again. ‘It’s difficult to determine the precise effect. Many of the long-listed museums and galleries have had major refurbishments, which is why they’ve entered. It’s difficult to judge the impact of winning the prize from the additional impact they’d have hoped to have anyway.’ With running costs at £150,000, last year’s prize attracted just 25 nominations. Including the prize money, that’s a price tag of £10,000 per nomination. Ironically, Ewles believes the size of the prize deters some worthy entries. But she is resistant to suggestion that it’s too big, saying only a large single prize has such an impact.

But other prizes claim as large a splash with far fewer funds. The New Designers Award for emerging UK talent has a £2,000 cash prize for the winner, plus legal, accountancy, PR, and software support. Nevertheless, Isobel Dennis of Upper Street Events, who run the award, says, ‘It kick starts your career. It really sets you up. We also have a good relationship with sponsors. They often place winners within the company.’ Last year, the award attracted over 3,500 entries.

The New Designers Award sets itself the limited goal of having a direct and personal impact on the career of a graduate designer. The grand dame of the art prize awards – the Turner Prize – has a loftier aim: to ‘fundamentally increase the awareness of contemporary, living artists in Britain,’ according to one of its curators, Helen Little. Twenty-five years ago, when the prize was founded, it would have been rare for someone to be able to name a living British artist. Now they’re considered celebrities. ‘The Turner Prize played a major role in that amazing transformation,’ says Little. ‘Of course, it’s been fuelled by other things like Tate Modern and the Young British Artists. But it has instigated wonder and interest in British artists.’

But does the Turner attract new audiences to art, or just lure back the same old gallery lurkers? Little is convinced the controversy surrounding the Turner draws in those who wouldn’t normally go to contemporary shows. ‘Some are new visitors coming out of a sense of curiosity,’ she says. And with last year’s award luring 90,000 visitors, she probably has a point.

I have a particular interest in the impact of awards. At Kids in Museums, we run the Family Friendly Museum Award in partnership with the Guardian. It was important to us, when setting up the award, that it causes ripples as well as a splash. We wanted our award to make a difference.

For our award, the nomination process itself became a vehicle for change. Taking the Kids in Museums Manifesto as a starting point, many museums use making a nomination as an opportunity for an audit against the Manifesto’s 20 points. So for the hundreds of these kinds of entries, whether they come anywhere near winning or not, a very useful process has already taken place.

And the award doesn’t finish when the winner is announced. We see that as the start, not the end, of the process. That’s when the ripple effect should take over. Ian Forbes, Director of Killhope North of England Lead Mining Museum, the winner of the first Guardian Family Friendly Museum Award, says, ‘Immediately it felt like a validation of our approach to our public. Later it felt like a challenge. Not just that we had something to live up to, but more that we should use the award as a spur to achieve more. How can we continue to improve? How can we continue to ensure that what we offer is fresh and relevant to the next generation of museum visitors?’

And as for the award-winning artist sitting in the obscure gallery? She said that, when she won the award, everyone wanted to see her work. It was a big splash. But it’s far more difficult now. There aren’t too many ripples.

The shortlist for the Guardian Family Friendly Museum Award will be announced at www.kidsinmuseums.org.uk and in the Guardian on 6 February. Dea Birkett is Director of Kids in Museums. To order your own free Kids in Museums Manifesto, go to www.kidsinmuseums.org.uk.

Image: David Byrne’s Playing the Building Installation, The Roundhouse; Inside Urbis, both courtesy Susie Stubbs.

Possibly related to this:

1. One for the kids. Dea Birkett makes a plea for more art, less finger painting...