Cornelia Parker

Artists are becoming more and more determined to provide art for the masses rather than for the critics. There is a war going on between the two forces and the general public is caught in the middle. Do we applaud the bravery of new movements that dismiss the snobbery of establishments, or do we scoff in their faces and make a mockery of what they call 'art'?

But we must pity these poor critics that have to bear with the constant challenge they are faced every time an exhibition opens. There is no longer anything that cannot be classified as art and therefore, something - preferably deep and meaningful - must be written. It was once their job to comment on the technical skill of the artist and praise their use of a medium to achieve their means. Unless they wanted to write about how excellent the solution preserving Damien Hirst's shark is, there is very little to comment on in that area. Instead, they simply have to tune into the artists work and understand what it is saying - despite the apparent determination of artists to be as ambigious as possible.

I am finding it rather difficult to write a page on Cornelia Parker's Thirty Pieces of Silver. There is plenty to discuss in terms of possible meaning and allusions, but I don't to sound too presumptious. I don't want to write some philosophical analysis...

Is it more difficult being an art critic or an artist?