Sir, - In response to the recent letters of William Mayne and Hillary Cartmel regarding the sculptures commissioned by the Saltburn Improvement Company, Mr Mayne describes the silence of the SIC over the problems it is experiencing in imposing them upon us "interesting". Well, Mr Mayne, we who actually live in Saltburn are sick and tired of the "interesting" silences of the SIC and no more so than with the one over the allegations over gross mismanagement of £3.5m.

Their shambolic entry into the well-established procedures for the commission and siting of public works of art with the consequent planning refusal not only shows the pervasive nature of their management but the arrogant manner in which they pursue their objectives, and sadly there is more than a hint of a similar attitude in some of Mr Mayne's remarks.

Hilary Cartmel, describing her distaste for her friend's sentimental china figures, leaves us in no doubt regarding her outrageous but justifiable indignation if one day she found these ornaments had been cemented to her mantelpiece. That is exactly how we feel about the similar wanton imposition of her sculptures upon our sensibilities.

It would be a good idea if she would let her friend, Mr Mayne, know this as it appears he has difficulty in understanding the real issue so many of us are pursuing.

Hilary Cartmel cites the new establishment of the art world, but fails to grasp that the difference between Chris Offilis' elephant dung creations, Damien Hirst's abattoir shenanigans, Tracy Emin's autobiographical vomit and her sculptures is that we can only be sent into the depths of depression if we elect to view their works, but such is not the case with public works of art such as hers, where unfortunately there is no escaping the confrontation.

If, as we expect, the SIC gets planning permission for its sculptures, I hope we are spared the further embarrassment of having the silence being broken by them and the cultural tsars at whose feet they sit.

ANDREW BARR

Avon Court,

Saltburn.

A true original?

Sir, - Hilary Cartmel's letter (D&S, Sept 14) raises important questions. Firstly, regarding D Hirst et al, she says: "All these are establishment art." When was establishment backing ever a good thing in art controversy? Doesn't the word mean official, generally accepted, safe, standard (if not bog-standard)? And isn't good art a bit more original than that - original, not just novel?

Secondly, if something is widely exhibited, written-up, shown on TV, does this necessarily mean it's any good as art? Does hype really equal quality? Is a sense of quality rooted in taste, i.e. whim, personal fancy, or in insight based on experience, knowledge, practical involvement and a fair degree of objectivity?

Do our marketable artists believe they have a monopoly in these things?

Answers on a postcard, please, to ...

JOHN BRELSTAFF

Thweng Way ,

Guisborough.