Sir, - Michael Colgan's assertion (Arts, December 11th) that advertisements of the past 10 years are "funny, clever, witty" and somehow indicative of a seismic shift in the collective imaginative is entirely fatuous.
Which ads precisely is he talking about? Simply because they conform to the Aristotelian model (the three-act structure) does not mean that they are necessarily good.
And what of the content? Let's face it, the vast majority of ads peddle their wares by implying that you will become more sexually attractive if you buy the product. Sex equals sales. That's about as deep as it gets.
As for his equally preposterous claim that MTV is "one of the most extraordinary art forms", is he talking about Ronan Keating prancing around in the desert? Or the terminally bland presenters - most of whom look like they have just stepped out of a Smirnoff Ice ad? Or those trendy graphics which must have taken all of an hour to knock up on an Avid editing system?
Attention spans are shorter, not because of any acceleration in the imaginative processes, but through the narrowing of choices and the erosion of quality by professionally packaged mediocrity. - Yours, etc.,
Philip Bellew, Stamer Street, Portobello, Dublin 8.