In every field there are the traditionalists. Those traditionalists, in most genres, are now marginals, ostracised for their 'regressive' tastes. Those who prosper, generally, pass off their traditionalism as high kitsch, or high theory. Nearly all though, treat their approach as polemic, be it Robert Adam the architect, or the Stuckists, or Prince Charles, even at a push the varied legions of post-modernists in whatever field.
For very few is it simply the natural conclusion of the process of their profession, and even more rarely do they treat a traditional approach as a live medium to be brought into relevance by careful understanding of subject matter and methodology. That's why George Shaw is my pick for this years Turner Prize. His resolutely traditional paintings of derelict sites and council estates make no apology for their classical composition or painterly qualities, but by the same token, neither does he scream their virtues. They are simply very good paintings of things that need to be painted.
If only the Stuckists had cottoned onto this instead of their sub-Dadaist ranting. While they were waving placards at our Tracey's shows, maybe instead they should have actually been learning how to paint (and, just as importantly, what to).
Shaw's paintings use the familiarity of both the medium and the composition to extend, not subvert the genre. The lack of glamour in his subjects comes to the fore and is disconcerting, and beautiful, in it's context in a way that it could never be otherwise.
I don't have a vote, unsurprisingly, but if I did, it would be for Mr Shaw.