A light turning on and off repeatedly, that is not art - that is faulty wiring; dont call the Turner Prize, call an electrician.

A stack of shoes is not art, nor is it art if you invite people to waer the shoes for a bit.

Blocks of colour. That is not art. A red square, a yellow square, a blue circle. 5 year olds can produce better.

However, some modern art is brilliant. There is the odd Jackson Pollock work that has avibrancy and energy rare in contemporary exhibitions. Look closer and you'll see the relevance of the title, and the irony or sarcasm of his representation/interpretation. But of course some of what he does is crap, plain and simple.

At some point over the next month or two i'm hopefully going to go to Tate Modern to see the Bauhaus/New World exhibit, my thoughts on that school remain pending.

Now, Caravaggio - that's powerful, dark, sombre, brooding, provocative art, and yet technically it's often falwed - but still you have to stand back and admire its passion.

There are many great artists, but they are grossly outnumbered by talentless hacks who make disgusting amounts of money off passing fads. Tate Modern more than proves this.

I don't think one can define Art by what it is, i don't think it can be pinned down.

But it can be fenced off from what is not art, i can with confidence label something as "not art" or, more prefarably "crap".

Like fascism in some ways then - art is defined by what it is not rather than what it is. Or perhaps not, i realy dont know much about the subject.

Art does require a few certain things as far as i can tell: inspiration, creativity, and i think art should say something about society.

When i go to Tate Modern, i'm also gonna try and get in to the British Museum and National Gallery.

On my return, i hope to know a litle more about art, be a little more confident in talking about it, and be a little bit more cultured and ever so slightly - more broke.

An unmade bed is not art.

But Tracy Emin is most certainly an artist.