Sir, - Francine Cunningham's interesting article about the "Gallery of bad art" in Boston (October 19th) illustrates a new aspect of the "culture business". Only now, at the threshold of a new Millennium, has man's aesthetic sense evolved to the point where he can recognise and collect art "too bad to ignore". Artifacts once philistinely trashed may now be seen as worthy of museum status, mocking the "loftier pretensions of the professional art world". The old problem "but is it art?" has been solved simply enough by the discovery of a new category - "bad art". Now with Marie Jackson, "director of aesthetic interpretation" at the museum, we can say: All that's painted with courage, enthusiasm and exuberance is art. Some is good, some is bad. But all is art.
Come on, Jackson. Art means art, means what is aesthetically good. There is no such entity as "bad art". One might as well try to imagine a beautiful object that revolts, or a right angle of 20 degrees. It is right that people should paint what they want, with enthusiasm; good therapy for stressed spirits, at least. It is wrong however to find it artistic when it is bad. -Yours, etc.,
John Francis, Skerries, Co Dublin.