jih (hey, that almost makes "jihad" . . sorry, I'm getting paranoid . . ) . . some are, some aren't . . and the best way to get media coverage is to be controversial - and, I guess, the best way to get column inches is to be pretentious. That accounts for some of the art and (imo) much of what passes for art criticism. (Why should criticism be exempt from the general decline in publishing standards ???)

With Art in all forms (inc. visual arts but not IMO imaginary art) what counts is your personal reaction to it, although that reaction may be enhanced by the insights of scholarship . . .

As for the Tate Modern, my strongest impressions of it were of philistinism on the part of its curators - in hanging a massive banner (promoting the "Cities of the Century" exhibition) so as to obscure the strongest view of the Turbine Hall, and in lighting circutlation spaces in such a way that it's impossible to view the illustrations hung there without the image being spoilt by reflections of the lights . . (ok, perhaps the mistake is in putting those illustrations there in the first place . . )

G.