The notion of 'movements' in art is to me a significant imposition by the critic, an imposition designed for the promotion of the commercial side to art. There are thousands - if not millions - of un-promoted artists, some highly skilled or talented, who derive no income from their endeavors. Sometimes these artists fall into generic categories, enticed by the lure of specific techniques or perhaps seeking a sense of close proximity to the idolized and well promoted few. Others do not practice genre - somewhat hard to come by, but they are somewhere - freedom of expression has been championed by critics and the art establishment for maybe 150 years, yet the imposition of categories and fame remains a constant threat to the innocence of art. Sometimes art historians might try to infer perspective in a Kandinsky piece, or reason in public the concept beneath a piece - I find this aspect, a contextualisation of art in language, tends to defile work.

Once I went in a maddened state (angry with the dearth of street culture, the surfeit of sandwich shops and propensity for violence in the outdoor youths) into a major gallery; the place was packed with tourists, I slipped through without paying any attention to the pieces on the walls; abruptly yet perfectly timed - in tune with the madness - I came upon a Van Gogh, and became in love with the painting. No discussion, no evaluation, simply adoration. Perhaps the relationship between to audience and the art is devalued by the stagnant, vacant state of society - a situation ideal for the sale and conflation by definition of art 'movements'.