There's a mini arts festival on in Newcastle just now and I'm looking at bits of it. I'll find something worthwhile somewhere eventually. It all looks like scratches in the dust, so far, and nothing to compare with the natural beauty of the estuary - which has been heavily modified, of course.

Art doesn't need to be pretty but it certainly must be beautiful. This is a primary definition of the term (and the question has occupied intellectuals, students and practitioners since the earliest days). And then you need to define beauty. Antony Gormley is fit and handsome yet his Angel - based on his body cast - isn't. I can only explain how I feel about it, which is based entirely on my upbringing and education.

I appreciate the two Gateshead gasometers as sculpture, filling and emptying, never still, beautifully patinated, two enormous bosums nurturing the town but, enough of the northeast how's about what's happening in France? ( http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2279597,00.html ) Richard Serra's new work - majestic or moronic?