The Independent's Arts & Books section is dominated by their estimable art critic Tom Lubbock talking very interestingly about Surrealism - there's a big survey of the stuff at the V&A opening next week. Fine. Under the headline "That's really surreal", the standfirst asks, (and answers): "What do September 11, Crufts and the Lake District have in common? Fish".

Why? Because the word "fish" is a trope deemed to have universally surreal qualities. Ask someone to think of a surreal word and they usually come up with "fish" (or sometimes "carrot", or "cheese"). Lubbock quotes the popular joke: "How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? Fish". It's not in the least bit surprising. There is nothing less surreal than fish. Fish are anti-surreal. Why couldn't they have said leotard, or pork tenderloin, or the three of clubs, or the Sultan of Brunei? Proves the point of the article, in a way: surrealism has been co-opted into the mainstream but in doing so has been reduced to a set of predictable signifiers, which means, by and large, it has failed. Lance Armstrong.