Thursday, May 1, 2025
Blog Page 1044

Warhol in fresh light

0

It is not controversial to assert that Andy Warhol is the most instantly recognisable artist for the latter half of the 20th century. This makes the task of putting on an exhibition of his work rather problematic – presenting Warhol in a fresh light is challenging when the man has had so much exposure. An unimaginative exhibition of his work would no doubt still draw crowds, so it is particularly exciting when an exhibition attempts to put together something genuinely fresh, to carve a new-fangled lens through which to view him. Last year, the Barbican did so by displaying (a portion of) his private collection in their delightful exhibition Magnifi cent Obsessions: The Artist as Collector. This year the Ashmolean Museum presents, in public for the fi rst time, over a hundred works from the collection of Andrew and Christine Hall. The collection is predominantly formed of various portraits – of celebrities, naturally, but also of politicians and other artists. It also includes other work, such as some of his Oxidation paintings and an attempt at replicating a Rorschach test, as well as a number of films loaned from the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Curated by veteran Sir Norman Rosenthal, the exhibition is brightly lit. Each piece has a number of lights from a variety of angles pointed at it, creating a criss-crossing overlap of shadows. Jonathan Jones suggests that there are shadows everywhere in Warhol’s work and Rosenthal’s careful curation reflects this notion in the exhibition space itself.

Contextual information is usefully, but not excessively, provided, in each of the rooms, and is sometimes even quirky. A highlight is the backstory of a series of portraits of Ethel Scull (1963), which explain how Warhol, armed with a hundred dollars’ worth of change, took her to a photo-booth and shot image after image after image, before picking the best 36 to use in the commissioned work. The result is a series of images of Scull in a variety of positions and a variety of colourways, which, when placed next to each other, produce a notable sense of movement – as if we are seeing her facial reactions throughout an average day.

A similar effect is enacted by the films included in the exhibition. Two Screen Tests, where people were asked by Warhol to sit and ‘do nothing’ in front of a rolling fi lm camera, are displayed on screens side by side. The focused gazes, combined with the participants’ minute twitches, make for a strangely transfi xing (and utterly disarming) experience. A 50-minute excerpt from Empire State, Warhol’s eight hour film of the changing daylight on the eponymous New York skyscraper, is shown on a screen on the perpendicular wall. The juxtaposition leads one to draw parallels between the building and the faces, both standing still in front of the camera but also minutely changing.

Warhol seems fascinated with the motion created through repetition, with his portraits of Watson Powell (American Man) providing an early illustration of this. Later on, we get a small selection of the hundreds of society portraits produced by the Warhol Factory, displayed in a large grid on a colossal wall. The portraits are often repeated with minor changes in colourways. In the same room hangs Twenty Fuchsia Maos (1979), which takes the official image of the leader disseminated throughout China in The Little Red Book and repeats it again and again in a gaudy colourway. Rosenthal’s note to the piece likens the image to the widely disseminated Coca Cola logo, and highlights Warhol’s transformation of a necessarily static image – a logo, or official portrait – into something changing and mutable.

The final room of the exhibition is, in this respect, unexpected, and more than a little jarring. Devoted to his late work, it is fi lled with black and white pieces which often focus on religious subjects. Subtle changes and the resultant movement they create give way to a preoccupation with dichotomies: between black and white, or ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell.’ Repetition only occurs in the form of positive and negative versions of the same work, further emphasising a focus on the opposition of these extremes (or lack) of colour.

Postulating about the purpose or meaning behind Warhol’s work will always present a problem, particularly given the man himself continually refused to share his system of beliefs. Such an ambiguity can, perhaps, be seen as a refl ection of Warhol’s diffidence in regards to his own image – he wore a wig from his 20s, narrowed his nose, and had repeated collagen injections in his later years. The self-portraits included in the exhibition are thus remarkable insights into a man of mystery, in that they articulate a desire for control over self-image. None are repeated like his other portraits, but rather each exists as a singular expression of himself. Yet that is not to say that these expressions are lucid or unaffected – rather, they are personas. As such, the resounding feeling upon leaving this exhibition is that we may never quite know what made the man under the wig tick.

A letter to…

0

Let me set the scene and demonstrate why I hate you. It was a Wednesday, a universally recognised okay day. Mediocre in almost every possible way, Wednesday is a day which is far enough away from the weekend to make the little things really, really matter. So I go to Hall.

The roast beef is great, accompanied perfectly by the classic fizz of an ice-cold Fanta: things are looking good. So I move on to my fruit crumble, something I had been thinking about all day and something I dream about all night until I get to Hall that evening. Crumble and I have had a pretty damn-near perfect relationship over the years; it’s always been there for me, in large helpings, ready to give me a big warm fruity hug. But this time was different, wasn’t it, prunes? A

s I delved my spoon deep into the crumbly goodness, and brought it to my mouth, I spotted you there, an intruder, a foreign object in stark contrast to the calming yellows and light greens of the apples and pears. A single, insolent, and black-as-darkest-night prune. You were staring with pure audacity up at me. I was furious. Like every sane person, I hate you. And not without reason. Let’s get this straight: you are, in most cases, dried, greasy, and horrible to eat. You look like you belong at the bottom of the deepest, darkest lake. I have had horrible and unforgettable experiences purely because I have encountered you and your cousins in several horrible meals over the years. And its not just for your mild laxative qualities, although mild isn’t the word that comes to mind when I think of my reaction to consuming your ilk at Christmas of 2010. ‘Explosive’ might be more apt. By the law of association, the whole of the crumble was now off-limits, purely because of you. I was sincerely unimpressed. Why did this have to happen? Usually our rivalry consists of long distance Tarantino-esque staring contests, as I express my disgust in the markets or stalls by throwing serious shade in your direction. This time you crossed the damn line. You hit me in my most personal of comforts: crumble.

One of my friends pointed out that it might not be a prune; maybe it was a plum. We are friends no longer. She just didn’t get it – the damage had been done. It wouldn’t have mattered if you had been a plum. You are so evil that even the idea of you puts me off. I know taste is subjective; I’m sure there’s a small group of people who can’t get enough of you – probably the Westboro Baptist Church or Katie Hopkins – but generally you are the rightly rejected member of the fruit family.

It’s of no surprise that the portion of our society known for their lack of senses, namely the elderly, love you, as they have the pleasure of neither being able to see or taste you. Stay in your corner, prunes, don’t make this personal and please, for God sake, leave the crumble out of this. It did nothing to deserve it.

Torpids 2016: Women’s form guide

0

Women’s top 18:

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13015%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13017%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13019%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

 

Its not them it’s their…

0

Dear readers, allow me to tell of a truly awful set of circumstances. It is, as you know, the season for internship applications. I know, I know, if I were in your position, I wouldn’t either. But you must keep reading.

The story begins one day as I sat at the Missing Bean. Extremely flattering turtle – check, bitterly elitist coffee – check, the week’s magnificent edition of Cherwell – most definitely check. It’s the early afternoon and the stuffy heat of the café is thick enough to make the ‘atmosphere’ almost tangible. It is the bubbly Oxford illusion embodied, where hot air seems substantially real.

Because it is the Oxford illusion par excellence I stress the ‘almost’. Oxford’s rarefied airs compose clouds that one alas can never catch. It is also the place where floaty dreams get punctured by stony spires. Right on cue, as I raised the liquid punishment that is my double espresso, a wave of icy malevolence broke onto the shores of my island-like pretension (that is to say, solitary.)

I attentively peered over the rim of my cup and gulped in horror. An incarnation of evil had just walked in. We’re talking about the sort of person who wears their utter worthlessness on their sleeve – literally, they dress like the H&M catalogue that befits their shameless boringness. I had to act. Cup at the ready, I made my attack.

“Oh sorry, did I spill my coffee on your (chromatically subnormal combination) of chinos and hoodie. I’m, so terribly sorry”.

The reference to a soulless commercial retailer is not passing. The villain in question had not only dared to invade this sacred space but had the audacity to betray a certain sense of buoyancy. It’s that buoyancy that the blaring soundtrack of H&M megastores attempts to enforce upon you, confusing your shopping experience with a trip to Wahoo. Or perhaps Wahoo is trying to confuse you into thinking you’re going to H&M – I don’t know. In any case, the smile on his face was as fake, miserable and momentary as any club that promises a ‘good time’. He needs to smile so that we might be believe that he is in possession of the satisfaction that is missing. Woe is me, if only he knew how hollow he is.

“Mate,” he said to his accomplice (for our purposes, lets call him H&M 2), “I just heard back from *insert anonymous management, legal, relations, trading, money corporate neoliberal capitalist something*”. H&M 2 appeared visibly animated. “Really, ‘mate’, like what did they say, ‘mate.’” The villain’s empty eyes flash. It’s like the moment on a stormy night in the middle of nowhere when the flash of a lightning bolt momentarily reveals the void around it. “Yeah, like legit, yeah ‘mate’; *insert anonymous management, legal, relations, trading, money corporate neoliberal capitalist something* said they so wanted to take me.”

And that’s when I got mad. A coffee cup results when you push water with 16 bars of pressure at a temperature of 92.7 degrees centigrade through 20 grams of meticulously selected, roasted and ground Arabica coffee. It also contains my spit. A coffee cup is the product of a brutally systematic process. It also contains the product of one’s most sordid and intimate biological depths. It is ironic that in attacking H&M 1 and 2, the weapon of choice was the synthesis of myself and the system.

Its impossible to understand how Mr H&M so happily accepts the system. Because of that, I hate him. Like my coffee cup – he can mix the most repugnant depths of himself with the produce of a murky, ethically questionable and ironically international system.

He’s happy to spend ten of his best years living in zone 78 of greater greater greater London in a semi-impervious box in order that he might spend half his monthly salary to perform a two-hour commute to a soul-crushing office at which to beg his manager for the opportunity to work past 22:00 in order to edge out the equally tortured competition.

He’s happy to forego his friends and family by living out his frustrations over cheap water cooler talk and indiscriminate office sex. He’s happy to delude himself that the problems of the world will be solved by the ethically responsible corporate outreach of *insert anonymous management, legal, relations, trading, money corporate neoliberal capitalist something*. He’s happy that the company-funded mindfulness session will be adequate reparation for the impoverished wreck of an existence that the simple quest of a reasonable living will cost him. But most of all, he’s happy that what he’s doing is what he ‘wants’ to do. The lesson I learned, dear reader, is not that we need the revolution, nor that we need to accept the inevitable submission. No the lesson is, I shouldn’t have wasted the coffee – it might be the last I can afford

I’ll swipe you off your feet

1

Where have all the good men gone? And where are all the gods? After a combination of a first term’s attempt at half-hearted self-loving and failing to fi nd the requisite ‘streetwise Hercules’, I have made the executive decision to join Tinder. The theory: what a lark! What a joy! The ability to choose people I find attractive, go on dates with them, live happily ever after. Tinder is weighed down by none of the late-20s desperation of match.com: a light-hearted essay distraction.

The reality: I didn’t expect Tinder to be what it is. I wasn’t prepared for the feeling of power. The premise is deceptively simple: a clear and easy-to-use interface masking a complicated algorithm which sees your inputted preference, your swish of the finger left or right, and ‘matches’ you with others in the local area. I become the maker of my own destiny. I am the playwright and the protagonist. I am the alpha and the omega. ‘With great power comes great responsibility’, I think to myself, as a scroll through Oxford’s ‘finest’ with increasing speed. The trouble is that the power is simultaneously wielded in the hands of the individual and the masses. Really, I’m not special – someone else has the power to reject me just as equally as I do them. Egalitarianism in online dating – who would have thought it?

And so comes the anxiety – which version of ‘me’ will promote me best to potential mates? Funny and irreverent, or a little more serious? A picture of me looking arty and wistful, or a club photo with aggressive flash to prove that I not only have friends, but also have left the library this term. Extra kudos for the ‘SE10’ logo to up the #edge. Self-selecting tells one a lot about oneself; when boiled down the absolute primacy of attraction, it’s easy to see trends in our attraction, and our prejudices too (shamefully, I haven’t yet swiped right on a Brookes student). Economists love Tinder for its almost perfect randomized controlled trial-like ability to test people’s preferences, and its creation of a marketplace for romance. Indeed, with or without Tinder and its compatriots, we are all consumers of romance – Valentine’s Day’s relentless capitalism infiltrates our consciousness more and more each year – so why not capitalise on the fi rst stages of attraction?

As a semi-failing economist with far too little time on my hands, I decided to set up a social experiment on Tinder. One particular specimen tells me that I have a ‘delicious face’, and another that I am the emoji for ‘bomb’ and the emoji for ‘shell’. Top class emoji play; I salute you.

Frankly, though, I’m disappointed with the men Oxford has presented me with. Horror stories from friends at other universities prepared me for the worst. There have been no unsolicited photos of the nether regions, few horrible pickup lines, and most fundamentally, no acts of aggression or sexism towards me. But also no conversation. Or very little at least. Perhaps I’m attracting the wrong type of men. Perhaps telling people that I’m only on Tinder as a social experiment may clue them up to the fact that I’m not entirely serious about who I swipe left and right upon. The most exciting moment was when I matched with popular reality television star Jamie Laing from Made in Chelsea – it was an ad, of course. My advice for the Tinder rookie? Prepare for disappointment.

What one does notice, is that when confronted, nobody is seriously on Tinder in Oxford. Oxonians, never willing to be caught dead conversing via a medium so direct and (dare I say) louche, are all ‘joking around’, or ‘procrastinating for collections’. It’s the handy get-out clause for those moments when you recognise a match in lectures, or on a night out, or realise that they are your college mum’s college dad. I suspect that this is a bashful cover-up for a real desire for love (or sex). Not for me, of course – I only downloaded it as a joke with my girlfriends. You may well wonder what Tinder says about modern romance. Who cares? In my opinion, it does not require much strenuous thought. Like many other irrefutable technological aspects of our day-to-day living which did not exist in the golden years – Instagram, mobile banking, cyber-bullying – there’s little point theorising. Tinder is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Its magnifi cently swift appearance in nearly all of the iPhones and Androids in my friendship circle is staggering. A hackneyed cynic would have mind to say that Tinder’s reduction of romance into the bare minimum is symptomatic of the modern consumer’s short attention span and insatiable desire.

This is probably true, but is so much the voice of a disheartened Generation X-er who mourns the loss of vinyl to synthetic princess pop. We are no stranger to human attraction stripped down, words on a page, a snapshot of a life and an imagined future together – lonely hearts columns have been going for as long as there have been newspapers. Tinder replicates this in a form easier to digest for the technically literate, and goes further to mimic the real-life ‘hot-or-not’ aspects of face-to-face dating.

Yes, oftentimes the onus is on sex rather than love, and I will concede that it is probably not a route for mating for life. But perhaps when all you want is another warm body in your bed for the night, Tinder is all that is required. For now though, my foray into mobile dating has been fun. Viva la Tinder!

Creaming Spires: Week 5

0

close friend once told me that there is something strangely attractive about sleeping with someone in a relationship. That, at its essence, is the allure of adultery and while certainly not something to be celebrated, the guilt is always intermixed with pleasure.

The scene is set late one Friday in Wahoo. A friend from home has disappeared off with a fresher and I’m left stranded on the upstairs R&B floor. Soon enough, I’m grinding up against a pretty blonde. We get off almost immediately and pretty soon we were approaching second base. I thought my luck was in. Suddenly, pounding footsteps. I’m grabbed from behind. “Get your hands off my girlfriend!” At last, the dreaded words I thought I’d never hear. Before me stood a squat, bearded fellow in a Hawaiian shirt. And flip-flops. Luckily, my blonde bombshell then removed any doubt I might have in my mind. She put her hands down my trousers and began to caress my groin. “He’s not my boyfriend,” she whispers in my ear. The game was up for this poor guy. I was no doubt the rebound, a tool in a long, sordid breakup.

Muttering in my ear that she wanted to go back to hers, I willingly obliged and before I knew it we were snogging our way down George Street, passing all the usual landmarks of a pre-coital stumble back to hers. Mystery Hawaiian man was forgotten as we played passionate tonsil-hockey all the way down the road. Pounding footsteps again. “Get your fucking hands off my fucking girlfriend!” Clearly Hawaiian shirt wasn’t going down that easily. Charging towards me in a jealous rage, he hit a jagged paving stone and face-planted just outside the kebab van. Torn between my instincts to put him in the recovery position and a desire to go to bed with his supposed girlfriend, I once more found myself in a dilemma. My blonde friend quickly solved this quandary, grabbing my hand and leading me on. The next thing I know, we’re in her room, grappling at the buttons on my shirt and the zipper on her skirt. It was animalistic, raw passion a combination of victorious elation and her purely physical desire. What happened next was entirely what you would expect. As she approached an orgasm, our moment of passion was rudely interrupted by a fierce knocking at the door. Then that terrible, anguished howl starts-up. “Get your hands off her, you disgusting man, leave her be.” Before I could muster a reply, the blonde replied, “Fuck off, you three-incher”. His protestations ceased. That, or her moaning simply drowned out Mr Hawaiian shirt’s futile protestations. We finished up, collected our clothes and went our separate ways. I recalled that my opponent might be waiting for me outside.

At first glance, the corridor seemed empty. But as I left her room, he appeared out of nowhere. Panicking, I searched his form for a weapon. But he stood there, helplessly morose. I held the door open for him and left.

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus

0

Nabeel Qureshi, as it turned out, is a much more prolific writer than I had anticipated when originally planning this interview. With his new book Answering Jihad coming out shortly and another, No God but Jesus, coming out in August, there was clearly enough material for an article much longer than this. But alas, through forced restraint, here is my limited account of a fascinating conversation.

As any writer, he focuses on his own expertise – his is comparing Islam and Christianity. His conversion at the age of 22, after years of living a very devoted and strict Islamic faith (he was originally from the Ahmadiyya sect) provides a valuable perspective on the position of the two faiths in our society and how they should be understood. Seeking Allah, finding Jesus is his personal account. His aim was to help Westerners understand Muslims, particularly because of the fear which often defines relations today. He attempts to do this by describing his own childhood, providing a point of connection for those who view the Muslim faith as something ‘alien’. The book also attempts to explain Christianity to Muslims, and Islam to Christians, in the hope that they may understand one another. The third aim of the book is to help people understand the difficulties faced by converts, moving from one religious background to another. Indeed, in contrast to the individualism of the West, in many areas of the world people view their identity as part of a collective, where the decisions you make impact your family, your tribe and your nation. In consequence, there are tremendous ramifications for converts, as certain decisions can mean they are viewed as traitors.

He penned Answering Jihad because of the very polarised response to Muslims coming westward. He explains, “It addresses how to treat Islam as a religion versus how to treat Muslims as people, so that we understand accurately the religion and its systems, but we treat the people with compassion, because as a Christian I believe they are all image-bearers of God, whether or not we agree with them.”

No God but One he wrote as an explanation of the intellectual side of his conversion. It also presents the differences between Islam and Christianity. As he puts it, “There are analogous notions in both faiths, such as God, prophets etc, but those notions being analogous, does not mean they are the same.” In the second half of the book, he investigates the case for Islam and Christianity and asks whether either is worth sacrificing everything for.

We discuss the biggest misconceptions of Christianity, both from a Muslim and a ‘Western’ perspective. He highlights the particular postmodern relativist view of the world that the West appears to have chosen and claims that Muslims and Christians actually have much more in common by comparison. He claims, “A westerner would ask questions, such as why would God send people to hell? Who are Christians to say what is immoral?”

A Muslim issue with Christianity is much more specific, such as, “How can you believe in the Trinity”, or, “How can you expect an orderly world without a specific law such as Sharia?” He does, however, highlight that the arrival of many Muslims in the West has meant that many of these boundaries have become blurred.

But what actually is a Christian? As ever in these conversations, it is important to define your terms. He explains, “When I am talking about a Christian personally, I mean someone that intentionally follows Jesus, who worships only the God of the Hebrew Bible and Jesus as the risen Lord.” Sounds simple enough. He makes a point of excluding people who have been brought up in a Christian home, but who do not personally choose this way for themselves.

We briefly discuss the hypocrisy of a potential Christian superiority complex. He argues, “To be a Christian you have to admit that you are sinful, that you need God’s salvation unlike other perspectives where you can to some degree earn your way, work your way, enlighten your way into heaven or the equivalent. This perspective requires you to be completely humble and just receive”. He also highlights the benefits of the historical evidence surrounding the beginnings of the Christian faith and the fact that it is a faith grounded in love, through the eternal selfless relationship within the Trinity. From a personal angle, he claims, “If Christianity were just another message, I would never have accepted it.”

His favourite verse of the Bible is Mark 12: 30-31 because it reinforces the revolutionary notion that when considering love, the self should be third in line, if not further down the list. He claims, “If we all lived like that, this world would be a much better place.” We briefly discuss parts of the Bible that are often pointed to for their apparent discrepancy, notably the abrupt end to Mark’s gospel. Nabeel argues that the apparent cliff hanger is there to offer scope for first-hand witnesses to finish the story from their own experience. This turns out to be his intended doctoral thesis. I move away carefully.

Finally, I ask for one piece of advice for the average Oxford student. He replies, “Stop going through the motions of school, university, job, marriage, mortgage, retirement, death. Your life is powerful, you are a unique individual in a unique circumstance with a unique personality and skill set… If God exists, you can aff ord to die helping others because you live eternally and your life can be used for a great purpose. Even if not, see yourself as an individual of great potential.” His story in five words: “God rescued me from me”

Torpids 2016: Men’s form guide

0

Men’s top 18:

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13023%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13011%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13014%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

Poetry Bites: HT16 week 5

0

I Flew – Lindsay Tocik

The first time I flew a kite without my father
Sky chose to tease Earth with sorrowful weather.
I walked with three others whom no longer know my name,
while we searched for open fields to launch our turtle tether.

Sky chose to tease Earth with sorrowful weather,
but Sun refused to give into Darkness. You should have seen her shine.
While we search for open fields to launch our turtle tether,
we shared chuckles, and Kite’s string became entangled with Vine’s.

As Sun refused to give into Darkness (you should have seen her shine),
I walked with three others whom no longer know my name.
We shared chuckles, and Kite’s string became entangled with Vine’s,
The first time I flew a kite without my father.

Note:

This week, in continuation of the theme of weather, Lindsay Tocik writes about sunshine. Lindsay is one of this term’s resident writers on Seven Voices, an online platform which features the work of seven new artists from around Oxford in response to weekly themes every term. Check out and respond to their creations at http://sevenvoices.weebly.com/

 

Is This Art? Minecraft

0

I don’t play ‘Minecraft’, so I admit that for this article I had a lot of help. In fact I barely ever made it past ‘Sims 3’, with a very thin smearing of ‘Runescape’. But whatever. I know a lot of people that do play it, and I have seen for myself the time and eff ort that goes into creating the games themselves and the hours put in by players, who experiment with the core materials to create beautiful structures of their own. Indeed, such commitment is easily comparable, and to some extent exceeds that of modern artists. However, can something created largely for its entertainment value be described as art?

The suggestion that video games can be art is not completely revolutionary. The Museum of Modern Art in New York has several video games now as part of its permanent Architecture and Design Collection. Of the selected list, the museum commented, “The games are selected as outstanding examples of interaction design…and one of the most important and oft-discussed expressions of contemporary design creativity. Our criteria, therefore, emphasize not only the visual quality and aesthetic experience of each game, but also the many other aspects – from the elegance of the code to the design of the player’s behaviour – that pertain to interaction design.”

According to your average bogstandard dictionary, art is “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” Indeed, it is clear how the creation of the game can be considered art. But what about the players themselves? Are they artistic creators?

I briefly looked online at some ‘Minecraft’ creations. Many show an incredible level of skill and architectural engineering. With ‘Minecraft’ versions of the Taj Mahal, the Pokémon Grass Gym, the Tower of Babel and Minas Tirith from Lord of the Rings, the creative scope itself is vast. Players have also added an educational element to the game; in 2014, a 1:1 scale recreation of Denmark was launched to teach urban planning and geography in schools. This reflects other formative attempts of art over the years. ‘Minecraft’ also has the advantage that it is not limited spatially like other art forms, as players are able to create whole cities. The potential for collaboration is also unprecedented.

Of course, there has been unavoidable controversy over the use of computers in the creation of art. But equally, there are many things in art galleries all over the world whose artistic qualities many struggle to understand. Just because something is popular, does that discredit its right to the title? Personally, I think it only enhances it.