The purest kind of art tends to get classed as “development” – and that is the product of whatever a toddler decides to create when left unsupervised with a bunch of crayons. In absence of verbal explanation, any shapes vaguely resembling humans amongst a kaleidoscope of scribbles, are assumed to be its parents, when really the child could already be harbouring ambitions to draft a successful comic series filled with superheroes. If we are gracious enough to credit the child’s creative output as art, then what makes it pure? The fact that the art is completed in one uninterrupted sitting, or that there was no contemplation as to how well or badly the artwork will be judged, and therefore no hindrances to the flow of creativity? Art for Art’s Sake, as the band 10cc sang.

Is this pure approach to art a luxury granted to adults or professional artists? Do paying visitors at an exhibition feel shortchanged if, when reading a caption, they learn the artist completed each work within thirty minutes in an unbridled burst of spontaneous self-expression, while blindfolded? Is the observer disappointed to know that the artist didn’t spend months – if not years – agonising over a canvas until it conveyed a perfect visual representation of their no-doubt troubled soul? If Da Vinci had knocked out his portrait of Mona Lisa within one afternoon, that would be talent distilled in its purest form. And maybe he could even have achieved that if quick-dry paint and a hairdryer had been at his disposal. The end result would have been no less magnificent. “Pure” is not a euphemistic term to substitute “lack of accomplishment or expertise”. The concept of “pure” may not truly exist, but the notion of “impure art” sure does. Just take the artworks which were deemed “degenerate” by the Nazis as one example (and come to think of it, has a painting ever been classed as simply “generate” if it ticks the right boxes for the beholder? Why can you be disgusted by something that’s not to your liking, but not gusted by something you take a shine to?)

Coming back to the artists and their efforts and motives, there is the question of who gets to exhibit their work in the first place or has the opportunity to enter the Turner Prize. If a teenager from a low-income family with ailing elderly relatives declares a desire to go to art college or study the history of art, that could be considered a frivolous choice by a family with limited means to support an artist still struggling for their big break.

So perhaps the art world isn’t a pure representation of all the artistic talent out there, but that doesn’t stop an observer’s reaction to an artwork from being pure. The artwork I was most drawn to in this gallery wasn’t on account of its provocative qualities or implied hidden depths. The reason I liked it was plain and simple…

It was blue.