There is something increasingly frustrating about conversations surrounding modern and contemporary art. Criticism seems almost unwelcome. Question the quality of an artwork and someone will immediately tell you that you don't understand the artist, that you're stuck in the past, or that art is subjective. Apparently, the only unacceptable opinion in contemporary art is that some contemporary art simply isn't very good.

Olu Slawn is an interesting example of this conversation.

Slawn has built a recognisable artistic identity, attracted considerable attention, and developed an audience that genuinely appreciates his work. But popularity, cultural relevance and artistic quality are not necessarily the same thing. And I think his work deserves more critical scrutiny than it often receives.

Not every colourful, unconventional or deliberately chaotic piece of work is automatically brilliant. Not every departure from traditional artistic techniques represents innovation. Sometimes, a painting is just underwhelming. Sometimes, the execution doesn't justify the attention surrounding it.

The problem is that contemporary art has developed an environment where the explanation behind an artwork can become more important than the artwork itself. Instead of asking whether something is visually compelling, technically impressive or genuinely original, conversations often revolve around its supposed symbolism, the artist's reputation and how much someone paid for it.

And this isn't exclusively a Slawn problem.

A considerable portion of modern and contemporary art leaves me wondering whether we've become more interested in the conversation surrounding art than the actual experience of looking at it. There is nothing wrong with experimentation, abstraction or rejecting traditional artistic conventions. Art should evolve. But evolution shouldn't mean abandoning criticism.

Art is subjective, certainly. However, subjectivity shouldn't become a convenient shield against every negative opinion.

Slawn's fans are entitled to love his work. But they should also be able to acknowledge that someone can look at the same paintings and find them unimpressive. Defending an artist doesn't require pretending every piece they produce is exceptional.

Perhaps the real problem isn't that contemporary art is different. It's that we've created a culture where questioning its quality is treated as a failure to understand it.

So here's my question: Are we genuinely witnessing an exciting evolution in art, or have we become so obsessed with artistic expression and conceptual explanations that we've stopped demanding quality from the finished work?