The quartet are: Gillian Carnegie, and her series of nude paintings; Darren Almond's multi-media installation; the psychedelic floor pieces of Jim Lambie; and Simon Starling, who drove a hydrogen-oxygen powered bicycle across the Tabernas desert.

But is it art? As ever, the shortlist has provoked frustration, apathy, indignation, and disagreement among critics and the public alike, along with some pleasure and enjoyment.

What do you think of this year's artworks up for the prize? Do you think the judges got the shortlist right? Are the artworks original enough?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we received:

Fair enough, it is becoming more and more difficult for "artists" to create sonething truly original, but just because something is original, it doesn't make it art, and it certainly doesn't follow that original automatically means good.
Craig Grattan, Warrington UK

They are making an essentially personal statement Tom, London

It's interesting that so many people think that art & artists somehow 'owe' them something. Artists are not manufacturing a product for consumers to enjoy or reject - they are making an essentially personal statement.
Tom, London

Gillian Carnegie shines out as something beautiful all too sadly missed for a long time at the Turner,she shows us something beautiful yet intangible,a new window through which to dream,and dare to dream.I also agree with the comments of Kwandar Heliopocrambat of London,to reward a true artist would only expose past mediocrity and the money moguls who fan the flames of their past mistakes for the sake of their bank balance not for the sake of art.if the truth would out they would be left with a pile of worthless junk .Go Gillian Carnegie.
David Bower, Bangor Gwynedd

I can't decide whether or not the comment from R Mutt, Lincoln is serious or not. Interntionally or otherwise, they've certainly captured the pretentiousness of the whole event perfectly!
James Robson, Scotland

I am overjoyed to see a painter in the group. I don't think I'm the only one. Of course I also always enjoy reading the outraged public reaction to the contest, so maybe the Tate can keep nominating bizarre art for a few more years yet.
Matthew, Northampton, MA, USA

History tells good artworks sustain time. Those convinced of this award merely believe themselves being able to realise ahead of the rest!
Jackie Lo, Hong Kong

From what I have seen, the selection isn't as bad as it has been in recent years, but whilst Carnegie and Starling are interesting, there is, once again, nothing particularly inspiring about any of them. I don't think they're rubbish, just not particularly moving. Art needs to start reconnecting with people and start trying to inspire us again. The Turner Prize merely reflects the cul-de-sac that art has drifted down. Pity.
John Hilton, Bristol, UK

I'm confused and I am certain the modern art world is too Kasper Brandt, Copenhagen, Denmark

This is a perfect example of the divide between the modern art world and its inhabitants contra the rest of the public. Apperently we ordinary art consumers are too dull to get it. When art becomes a comment directed only at the initiated, the whole meaning is lost. It has become its own closed system of strangely aquired convetions. A bike becomes art because its made from a Charles Eames chair and taken across the dessert. Is it a comment on consumerism, the decay of the hyper material society? Another nomenee even has a trademark: grids! Carnegie shows some craftsmanship, but how amazingly unoriginal. I'm confused and I am certain the modern art world is too.
Kasper Brandt, Copenhagen, Denmark

As usual, the judges have chosen to eschew anything sensible in favour of borderline stuff. As usual, it will please the pretentious tendency whose sense of self worth depends upon believing that they are better than the rest of us because they see art where others see only drivel. As usual, few will dare to criticise, on the grounds that art is allowed to be whatever anybody wants it to be, no matter how shallow. And as usual, I will not bother to take much notice. Having said that, this year's selection is not nearly as reprehensible as the nonsense we have seen in some previous years.
Richard Taylor, Didcot, UK

Looks vaguely better this year than the usual trash they wheel out. However, I still think Turner would be rolling in his grave to have his name associated with this nonsense.
Rob H, UK

What a load of pretentious nonsense.
Mike, South Wales

Perhaps the 'psychedelic' era stole the world's inspiration budget Mike Dziubinski, Blackpool, Lancashire

Is the purpose of art not to inspire and feed the imagination, as well as perhaps conveying some sort of topical message in order to encourage a reaction? I'm afraid that, as a very lucky 60's child I lived through some very beautiful times (artistically) prior to the desert we seem to have encouraged today. I can't see what skill there is in fooling a bunch of fools into believing there is something artistic or skilful in a pile of bricks or half a cow or an unmade bed. Perhaps the 'psychedelic' era stole the world's inspiration budget for the next twenty years on.
Mike Dziubinski, Blackpool, Lancashire

I would like to see some art that makes me gasp and take a step back, not this. This is horrifying, bring back the beauty of art!
Paul Davies, Bournemouth, UK

Art has one true judge - time. The Turner prize is merely a way of the pretentious recruiting another to their ranks. To reward a true artist who shines would merely expose the mediocrity inherent within the London-centric elite who force this gibberish into the public consciousness. I hope Gillian Carnegie wins, although her work is hardly ground breaking at least it contains values that resonate with people outside of the braying London art mafia.
Kwandar Heliopocrambat, London

I have seen better art over the past year Chris, Crawley, UK

Who knows if they got the shortlist right - and who cares? Originality is not one of the criteria for the choice - being British, under 50, and having exhibited, or otherwise presented, their work outstandingly over the past year are the criteria. Personally, I have seen better art over the past year, but I am unable to confirm if the artists' were British or under 50!
Chris, Crawley, UK

I stopped taking the Turner Prize seriously years ago. Most of the entries are junk.
Dave Honest, Reading, Berkshire

These so-called modern artists have gone too far this time, parading their neuroses in front of decent people! Where's Jack Vettriano when you need him?
Andrew Birch, Malaga, Spain

Almond, too, is a good choice Anon

Carnegie is a great choice. I have trouble thinking of much of this as great art, but for all that I don't particularly like Carnegie's "bum paintings" aesthetically I do think that they successfully comment on the tradition of the nude in previous artwork. If I am put off by these works, at least I am left asking why I am not also put off by Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon or Botticelli's Birth of Venus. Almond, too, is a good choice; his installations are often elegant in their simplicity, and indeed they make you think. I am sceptical of the other two; merely calling something art does not make it so, even if you call it "edgy" art.
Anon

Every year Serota and chums try to shock us (usually with the utterly banal and talentless), and every year the media fall for it. Let's just ignore this silly prize.
Will Duffay, Welling

Gordon's as sponsor says a lot about these insults to my intelligence. Don't blame the artists - they take advantage of the evaporating brains of the sponsor and of the jury. As always the media thrive on such rubbish. �40,000 buys a daily healthy meal for 10,000 poor children over one year!
Herman Thuy, France

ENTERTAINMENT The one thing that has truly impressed me is the winner of the BBC fake Turner prize Tom Franklin, London, UK Take part in our Mock Turner Prize

As last year, as in previous years, the exhibitions by the artists are pure tripe. The painting hope, Carnegie, paints like a B grade O-level student. The one thing that has truly impressed me is the winner of the BBC fake Turner prize - the photograph with the sparkler. Now that's inspiring and effective. Award this year's Turner prize to the creator of that piece.
Tom Franklin, London, UK

Are you seriously suggesting the Plebeian masses are informed enough to cast views amounting to anything other than the usual pugnacious hackneyed trite beloved of the "Call Dat Art mate" readers of the Red Tops? No, neither do I, the entries are highly original. If they even acquire a semblance of "uproar" from the more parochial aspects of the media then you will have an affirmative answer to you question. Couple this poll, with the BBC site's "Mock Turner" competition and one starts to think that the BBC is embarrassingly dumbing itself down. Shame.
R Mutt, Lincoln

So he rode his bike powered by hydrogen, the hydrogen was made from what? And how did he get to the desert? Walked? Or in a 747 and Land Cruiser? Art can be funny, but is seldom useful when trying to say things about the world we live in. I love the Turner Prize, I have been to see the exhibition many times, over many years. But remember it is just art. It doesn't really matter.
Andrew Simmons, Wales/Kazkahstan

[sigh] Faulty people seeking meaning in inanimate objects again.
Paul Browne, Koblenz, Germany