IN response to Jim Wilson's "no" to the question about the Noirin Carmody photographs being art - I should like to pose this question: does all art have to be "something that is pleasant and beautiful to see" as Mr Wilson says?

Is it true that the whole of society remains in the supposedly safe, "fluffy" surroundings of our homes protected by such images as cuddly toys, pretty landscape pictures or romantic comedy movies, for example?

Is this where we get the incentive to make a difference in the world?

I don't think so.

Hide from it as you will but I believe that images such as those in the Carmody photographs speak of a very real present, and of a potential future suggesting the kind of world we are in the process of creating for ourselves and our children.

For me, a broad yet simple definition of art is "something which invites comment". This exhibition seems to have done exactly that.

I sit in the City Screen caf on a regular basis and see people coming and going, some of whom are highly intrigued by the work and some of whom do a double-take then ignore it.

The more we ignore such realities as those portrayed, the less they are likely to change.

Updated: 11:47 Friday, January 14, 2005