The painting by Bridget Riley is not clever or particularly skilful. The design looks like one suitable for bathroom curtains.

I can see within it colourful flames and that is quite attractive but for Southampton City Council to pay out £250,000 for the painting is utter folly.

How many council houses could have been built with the money, from which rent would have been collected and the council still own the land?

I am against any council holding onto so-called assets such as artwork, antiques etc, claiming they are a good investment and act as a reserve for when money becomes really tight.

The point is, if we were in such a recession, those items will then have no value as collectors will also will be feeling the pitch and look for bargains.

I can never understand why people spend loads of money on junk.

For me, something has a working purpose or is otherwise just clutter.

I also get annoyed with councils who give grants to local organisations making out they are being charitable when it is not their money and just simply off loading any balance of funds in the hope to receive a larger grant from central government from taxes collected from you.

It is all spin. Tell the public it is a good idea, then eventually they will believe it or give in to it.

A lot of modern art is just spin and tanlentless.

Whereas someone who can paint a proper landscape, portrait, which has taken them a very long time to undertake, receives no recognition until after they are dead!

Don't be taken in. It is your money...

RICHARD GRANT, Burley.