Stephen Snoddy director, New Art Gallery Walsall
"There seems to be something in the ether - in regional cities artists are staying put after attending art college to open spaces and network with international contacts to profile their work.
A dialogue and confidence has been generated to mirror the European model where artists are dispersed and not centred in the capitals and this can only be positive for the development of contemporary art.
The Turner Prize paved the way for the creation of Tate Modern through the annual media scrum and public debate it created. By it being exhibited outside London the Tate fulfils its national remit and responsibilities and the regions can show that contemporary art is part of everyday life.
To use a sporting analogy - when England played away from Wembley the support was more fanatical, it shouted louder and it wanted more."
Janet Barnes chief executive, York Museums Trust
"It was great to see the Turner Prize moving out of London to Liverpool this year. I think anything that gets the press and media out of the capital must be good for artists and the cultural profile of Liverpool.
But if I remember correctly, previous years had hours worth of TV coverage whereas it was reduced to five minutes in Liverpool.
I think realistically the press interest wouldn't be sustained if it was held every other year outside of London. However the power of the Tate brand cannot be underestimated and more high profile partnerships between the Tate and regional galleries would probably have more of a long- term impact."
Nick Dodd chief executive, Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust
"The Turner Prize is an international event and shouldn't be held anywhere except an international world city such as the capital. It needs to be in London to fulfil its international objective.
Having said that it was right to move it to Liverpool in the run up to the Capital of Culture - it has helped to refresh it and when it returns to London this year it will be better for it. Perhaps it could go out of the capital again for significant events; when Glasgow hosts the Commonwealth Games in 2014, for example.
If the regions want the prestige that a prize can bring they need to create their own prizes such as the Northern Art Prize in Leeds. That would be more imaginative and creative than just asking an established prize and brand to go to the regions."
Ronan Brindley programmes manager, The Harris Museum & Art Gallery, Preston
"Tate Liverpool has given the Turner Prize a new dimension. By breaking the London connection, the Turner Prize at Liverpool has shown that there is a proven and significant appetite for contemporary art outside the capital.
If this is a one-off, it will just be a nod to some vague notion of decentralisation. But if the event adopts a cyclical change of location, the prize stands to gain vitality and break a growing sense of predictability.
Contemporary art needs London as an international capital, but London needs the regions to develop and extend the national appetite."
"There seems to be something in the ether - in regional cities artists are staying put after attending art college to open spaces and network with international contacts to profile their work.
A dialogue and confidence has been generated to mirror the European model where artists are dispersed and not centred in the capitals and this can only be positive for the development of contemporary art.
The Turner Prize paved the way for the creation of Tate Modern through the annual media scrum and public debate it created. By it being exhibited outside London the Tate fulfils its national remit and responsibilities and the regions can show that contemporary art is part of everyday life.
To use a sporting analogy - when England played away from Wembley the support was more fanatical, it shouted louder and it wanted more."
Janet Barnes chief executive, York Museums Trust
"It was great to see the Turner Prize moving out of London to Liverpool this year. I think anything that gets the press and media out of the capital must be good for artists and the cultural profile of Liverpool.
But if I remember correctly, previous years had hours worth of TV coverage whereas it was reduced to five minutes in Liverpool.
I think realistically the press interest wouldn't be sustained if it was held every other year outside of London. However the power of the Tate brand cannot be underestimated and more high profile partnerships between the Tate and regional galleries would probably have more of a long- term impact."
Nick Dodd chief executive, Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust
"The Turner Prize is an international event and shouldn't be held anywhere except an international world city such as the capital. It needs to be in London to fulfil its international objective.
Having said that it was right to move it to Liverpool in the run up to the Capital of Culture - it has helped to refresh it and when it returns to London this year it will be better for it. Perhaps it could go out of the capital again for significant events; when Glasgow hosts the Commonwealth Games in 2014, for example.
If the regions want the prestige that a prize can bring they need to create their own prizes such as the Northern Art Prize in Leeds. That would be more imaginative and creative than just asking an established prize and brand to go to the regions."
Ronan Brindley programmes manager, The Harris Museum & Art Gallery, Preston
"Tate Liverpool has given the Turner Prize a new dimension. By breaking the London connection, the Turner Prize at Liverpool has shown that there is a proven and significant appetite for contemporary art outside the capital.
If this is a one-off, it will just be a nod to some vague notion of decentralisation. But if the event adopts a cyclical change of location, the prize stands to gain vitality and break a growing sense of predictability.
Contemporary art needs London as an international capital, but London needs the regions to develop and extend the national appetite."
