The decision was the first for the award, previously won by acclaimed artists, including Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin. The jury's reasoning? Recognizing the artists' "shared commitment to urgent social and political causes."
So what's the problem? This sharing is a little harmless benevolence, right? A bold new way of approaching prizes and a more sophisticated way of criticizing art?
Not even close. According to some corners of the internet, you may well be a snowflake if you are not mad about the Turner Prize decision.
"Nonsense!" someone yelled after the Turner Prize decision was announced. "Political correctness went crazy!" chuntered others. [19659008find?"Askedthepaper"Erdette'ssymptomspring'snowflakeage'wheredidthecompetitiongowhenitwasabolished?askedforparticipationtrophy"-wassarcastictheauthorartwriterAndrewRussethtoldCNN
"I don't understand why people are really worked up with it," Russeth said of the decision to jointly award the prize.  Still, with tensions between generations X and Y at the boiling point, the mass display seems to have called some feathers – and those behind it accept that it reflects is a growing trend.
But where does this give prizes? Is there any point in spending gongs anymore, or is it time to eliminate winners and losers altogether?
& # 39; They've already won & # 39;
The idea "first came from the artists themselves," said Alex Farquharson, the director of the Tate Britain gallery which organizes the Turner Prize.
"They think of themselves as a collective," he told CNN. "Each of them works in a participatory way with groups of people, and these groups of people reflect the different political and moral concerns each has in their work.
" Their concern as they provided these ways of working, the policies they take Up, the competition format could be antithetical to the goals of the work. "
In addition, Farquharson said:" Everyone who is nominated for a TP has already won in a way. "
Farquharson, who chaired the panel that handed out the award, accepts that the four-way prize would lose significance if it were repeated each year.
But he felt the idea of rejecting a single winner
"We live in times when attitudes to competition are less straightforward than they were in the early years of Turner Pr izes history," says Farquharson. "There are many different prizes – unlike sports, (in art) it is impossible to arrive at an objective sense of a winner. "
The shift, Farquharson suggests, is a reaction to a political and social climate that has grown divisively." the figure, after the fall of the Berlin Wall. There was a new kind of consensus after that, "he says." Generally (nineties) was often experienced in Britain as less political times. "
But he cites 9/11, the economic crash and Brexit as three milestones, after which" a sense of the world in conflict became very clear again. "
" Where oppression and divisiveness is felt in society and politically, artists become more or react in a very political way. "
Want to see more ties?
Ceremonies that award prizes to the left, right and center, the question remains – what happened to winning?
" Back in my day, artists wanted kill for the Turner Prize. Literally kill! They would lie, cheat and steal, "Russeth wrote in his tongue-in-cheek Twitter post – which quickly won praise from many who are angry with the decision." Bribery judging? Sure. Sabotage a competitor's intricate installation? No big deal, "he added.
In fact, Russeth told CNN: "This notion of having artists compete in public and once away the winner feels a bit degrading and uncomfortable. "
He called the Turner Prize decision a" nice gesture. "But he was not surprised that the decision took so long to arrive.
" People like the drama … everyone likes to announce the winner, "he said, noting that cultural awards have become an industry in him. itself.