Yes I know what you mean, but there are other avenues for artworks to explore, and some of them are messy and unsettling, and the artist can’t know in advance how things are going to turn out. Sometimes there’s a certain strong coherence (Henry Darger); at others it just looks manky (Sarah Lucas), even if, as in the case of Sarah, she’s telling us lots of interesting things.

The ‘Kimbell’ effect is, as I see it, at the top end of cultural crafting — it represents the high end of aesthetic refinement — it’s Wigmore Hall as opposed to hardcore venues like the Old Kent Road Ambulance Station (what a place!). But Black Flag couldn’t really do the Wigmore, in the same way as Uchida can’t really do the Ambulance Station.

Kimbell are unlikely to exhibit Schwarzkogler or Paul McCarthy anytime soon, but not because they’re twits (cf Hughes) but because their whole approach is so untidy and repulsive. But repulsive has something to tell us, and has its own fascination (cf almost unwatchable films like ‘The Golden Glove’ or ‘Irreversible’). This is the real message of the best of modern/contemporary art: elegance and refinement are beautiful achievements, but there are other things going on as well, not all of them easily constrained.

Which brings us to the biggest problem of all re contemporary art: the disturbing and unsettling and repulsive are much harder to orchestrate than the pretty or the elegant or the refined. Do it wrong and you end up with nothing (Hirst).