Letter: What does HIrst's udderless cow mean?

From Ms Barbara Spring

Sir: The contemporary art sceptics will have all their doubts and hates confirmed by this year's Turner Prize choice ("'Enfant Terrible' Hirst wins the spot prize", 29 November). I, too, but particularly because of a problem with the inherent nature of the work.

Anyone who has seen a cow must have a problem with Damien Hirst's cow. The poor divided creature accompanied by a calf could never have suckled any child, being to all appearances perfectly udderless: the full bag of rich and beautiful milk that gives life to calf and child, that makes a cow a cow, is simply not there.

Having given the work a name ("Mother and child divided: cow and calf") the viewer presumes the artist intends something meaningful about the work. What does this udderless cow mean? Is there a hidden agenda here: is it a cynical joke? Is it an existential exercise? Or, after the calf had been paid for, did funds not run to a real milking cow so an immature heifer was bought instead?

Once one has seen the problem one suspects a fraud; if there is not integrity in a work considered to be so important, whatever are the values of both artist and critic? I am having real trouble in suspending my disbelief, and await the explanation from the pundits hopefully, in order that understanding may awaken appreciation.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Spring

Saltash, Cornwall

29 November