I WOULD like to reply to the comments of Matt Harper, who obviously does not know his art from his elbow. Modern art isn't about passing a message.

It is a piece of "epater le bourgeois". Modern art mainly offends, although there are one or two exceptions. I am not against the blending of colours or making beautiful shapes, (which I would consider as designs rather than traditional art), but the majority of modern artists manufacture unpleasant-looking items to gain publicity, and to deceive the public into thinking that they have some aptitude, while "arty" arrogant types, believing themselves to be experts on modern art, eulogize them.

Greetings cards (a form of art) send agreeable messages of greetings, congratulations, or condolence. I have yet to hear of someone sending a picture to the parking ticket office complaining. Surely if one has something to say, isn't it easier to write about? Mr Harper contradicts his own argument by writing a letter, and not assembling a repugnant load of junk to state his case. He also quotes the old story about photography replacing painting. Not so. A half decent painter can make even the most unattractive person or a landscape look acceptable.

The majority of traditional artists do sell a considerable amount of their work (unlike conceptual or installation artists, whose work usually ends up in the waste bin) -- take a peek in the skip at Chadwick Street the next time you are passing.

I would hardly call Bolton a cultural desert. If that is your perception, Mr Harper, then I would suggest that you remove the blinkers from your eyes and look around you at some of the beautiful buildings. Look at your own district -- Smithills. The moors surrounding Bolton. The historical features all around you. Like your friends, Mr Harper, modern art is all about getting your name in the paper. But I appear to have occupied more space than both them and yourself.

Robert J Burden

Thorntree Close

Moston, Manchester