Letter: Saatchi's appropriation of art

Sir: Your headline story this morning ('Saatchi's bulk purchase puts artist on map') will leave an unsavoury taste in the mouth of artists and people who care about art. The implication is that a bulk purchase by Charles Saatchi is an event: the years of slog that went into making the art itself is of marginal relevance. Dalya Alberge does not describe the work of Simon Callery, or explore his intentions. It is as if Mr Saatchi is an appropriation artist, and the people he collects are simply found objects.

I would guess the exhibition, which it is reported was bought in its entirety for pounds 20,000, represents two years' work by Mr Callery. After gallery commission and materials, the artist will probably get a quarter of that sum. Mr Saatchi, on the other hand, has in effect bought himself and his company the prime spot on your front page for the price of a small ad - and he gets to take home some art.

In my opinion, Callery fully deserves a wider audience for his sensitive and thoughtful paintings; but far from 'putting him on the map', inclusion in the Saatchi Collection is a serious professional stigma. People who might otherwise have been generous in their sentiments will ask what it is about him that appeals to the shock-, glamour- and gimmick- conscious advertising mogul. Being in the Saatchi Collection is almost as damaging to the reputation of a young artist as being shortlisted for the Turner Prize.

Yours faithfully,

DAVID COHEN

London, NW3

5 March