[Insert attention-grabbing title here]

"What do you want from me?"

This was the question facing me as I entered GUAG, to view the exhibition of the 2012 finalists of the Churchie Award. Literally.

Courtney Coombs' mixed media installation titled Speak Up, a bright pink and orange banner hung over the entrance, shouts this question to every visitor. Though her didactic alludes to an emotional break-up, Coombs' work translates to the new context with ease.

Passing beneath the banner, my attention was drawn to the winning piece entitled “Your Door”, by Heath Franco . The video work uses unrefined green-screening and low-quality footage. I've seen youtube videos by hobbyists frequently attain a higher standard of technical skill than seen here. It hardly matters though, as Franco makes up for it in nonsensical absurdity, and in loud, repetitious phrases. It demands to be experienced. It's a piece that demands to win.

Though I enjoyed Franco's work while I was consuming it, I found the way it permeated the entire space grating on the senses. It was difficult to devote my full attention to the other works with the absurd sounds following me. Always there, in the background. It won't let you forget about it.

As I wandered through the exhibition of 40+ pieces, it became clear to me that demand is the key to competitive advantage. Every piece on display engaged in fierce competition for my attention. The viewing of each work is peppered with the residual 'sounds' – both aural and visual – of the surrounding works. That the works were packed in so tightly next to each other is highly conducive to the competitive atmosphere of the exhibition. It may not have been a conscious curatorial decision, but had it been, I'd've deemed it an appropriate one.

Having said that, this approach clearly has its downsides. I wasn't even aware of the several works around the gallery entrance that I'd missed on the way in between Coombs and Franco. A false family album embroidered with bright floss, small-scale geometric paintings, a video-work, an intricate linocut and a tiny sculpture among other things filled the entrance. Their voices might have been quieter than the nonsensical Franco, but this particular juxtaposition did them a great disservice. Though strong in their own right, in the fight for attention these works never stood a chance.

Of the individual works, there were a few that caught my attention. I was drawn to Your Own Imaginary Death by Dord Burrough. Her play with the use of innocent pastels in the portrayal of the morbid was a compelling juxtaposition. From a glance at a distance, the work resembles a vase of flowers. Then you see it. The sunken eyes and deep purple bags, the furrowed brow and downturned lips. It's hard to tell if the man is still actively experiencing the torment of his life, or if the life has faded from him altogether. Rendered in lively impasto-style brushwork, this painting is full of contradictions.

Survey 2011 by collective Catherine Or Kate and Headliners 2011 by Agatha Gothe-Snape were both ingenious concepts, with engaging visual accompaniment. C-Or-K base their entire collaboration around the concept of competition. In this work, they reveal the absurdity of competitive practice which inevitably creates both a winner and at least one loser. That in itself critiques the very competition in which the work is presented here. Very tongue-in-cheek. Very clever.

Gothe-Snape's Headliners serve as a critique of the drama instilled in journalism. Her series of headlines are based on voluntary interactions with people through Sydney's Weekly Advertiser. While the content describes the uneventful, they are presented with the urgency and drama of typical newspaper headlines. It draws direct attention to headlines of today that make mountains out of molehills on a daily basis, and how easily we allow ourselves to be 'sucked in' by their fabricated drama.

Neither work was fully contained by the gallery. The works take place outside the gallery walls, with only evidence present in the gallery. It's good to see institutional critique is still alive and well.

It's not all fantastically progressive work, though. Some of the works were irksome and unspectacular. It's a shame that one of the major selection criteria was shock factor. Using shock factor as a curatorial premise is risky. In an effort to provoke the viewer, you run the risk of diminishing whatever else the works might have to say. I couldn't understand what a video of a man in the process of inebriating himself, or a scan of a gherkin slice stuck to the wall had to say for themselves. Well, other than, “I bet you weren't expecting this”.

by Lucy Tyler