For one thing, he is a successful abstract painter in his own right, disproving the oft-espoused theory that critics are failed artists. Perhaps more surprisingly still, he doesn't actually like art. At least, he doesn't like anything that's happened in the art world in his own lifetime. Fifty years of disappointment would be enough to lend most people an air of bitterness, but not Collings; the presenter of Channel 4's coverage of the forthcoming Turner Prize seems almost enthusiastic and energised by his distaste for the prevailing trends in post-modern art. With his eloquent and engaging approach to art criticism, he is one of the foremost art critics in the country.

It was so nearly very different. Collings says he fell into art criticism "purely by accident" when he was at art school in the early 1970s. "While I was there I noticed there was an alternative world to the painting world, of commentary, people talking about art in a way that seemed to be incredibly intimidating, and a sort of world of power. And I thought that without access to that world, an artist would be powerless. And so I found myself acquiring the skills of an art critic by complete accident. As you know, no young person dreams of being a rock critic - they want to be a lead guitarist or a singer. So I fell into it by accident, and I'm very sorry that I did."

Because it led him to neglect his art in the process? "Well, no, I probably wasn't a very good artist! I just found it better to be a critic, but I wasn't a very good critic either," he says modestly.

He is struck by the public fascination with the Turner Prize. "It is amazing how popular it's become, how much debate it engenders. But I think it's the prospect of scandal that gets people excited. It's people thinking that something even more appalling will happen this year than in previous years."

"I don't think there's ever actually anything very controversial - it's always a sort of fake controversy. I don't think this year's any different to previous years, really. The guy turning the lights on and off was a very good artist, but you'd have to be an incredibly informed, elitist player in the art world to know that. And that's the problem with the Turner Prize - it's putting on, for a very large audience, a spectacle that a very large audience can't possibly hope to understand. So it's not surprising that that very large audience is more interested in scandal.

"I don't think the Turner Prize is a bad thing, I think it's a very, very good thing, but I think the problem is that art itself is rather a complicated thing, and I think the artists themselves, and the bureaucrats who administer the art, don't realise a lot of that complication."

Collings rejects the idea that there is something strange about awarding a prize for something as subjective as art. "First of all, I don't think it is at all subjective, I think it's highly objective. And I don't think prizes are strange. They're part of social life, and they're good. They act as sort of lightning conductors to attract society's opinions, and in a way make people have opinions. But they really get people talking about art. I think that's absolutely fine, and I don't think people should complain about the existence of art prizes - of course, there's an element of absurdity, but it's an acceptable element."

He is less enamoured, however, with the rampant commercialism he sees as prevalent in the contemporary art scene. "It has to do with where society is at, at the moment. I suppose, talking generally, one could say that modernism, which we've had for 150 years, is about art which has no real place in society. The first period of modernism is very moral about that problem - art isn't really needed in society any more, so the art that still exists makes itself a sort of moral attack on the rest of society - and I'm all for that, I think that's a good thing for art. But the latter phase of art has not been concerned with moral issues, or has only pretended to be concerned with them, but has mainly been concerned with trying to catch up with the commercial possibilities of popular art."

"It's the way art has found itself to be over the last 50 years. Art itself isn't intrinsically immoral; indeed modernist art is highly moral. We're now in a period of postmodernism, where we tell ourselves that morality is a kind of fiction, that nothing is real, and that you can do anything you like, but in effect, what we're trying to do is make money."

This year, a project called Judge for Yourself is running alongside the Turner Prize, whereby the four nominated artists will have examples of their work shown in mainline rail stations in London, Manchester and Edinburgh. The idea is that passers-by will be able to write what they think of the art on a wall specially-reserved for the occasion. It is a concept that appeals to Collings.

"I think judging for yourself is absolutely laudable, and a good idea, because it equates to thinking for yourself. I think if the public thought for itself a bit more and demanded things to be different, then they could do something about the ghastly moral situation that society now finds itself in, and that is exemplified, in a negative way, by art. So I'm all for people judging for themselves."

So does Collings actually mind who wins the prize this year? "No, not at all - I have no favourites this year. But over the last few years, since I've been presenting the live programme for Channel 4, I think the artists who have engaged me the most have been the Chapman brothers, Chris Ofili, and Martin Creed (he of the lights going on and off). Those artists stand out to me as being a little more seriously engaged with what they were doing."