Singapore has seen a proliferation of contemporary art exhibitions and auctions in recent years. Installation art, like the infamous shark suspended in a tank of formaldehyde, can be worth millions of dollars in the world of contemporary art. This article examines whether installation artworks can satisfy the requirements for the subsistence of copyright in Singapore. The intrinsic characteristics of installation art, including the transient nature of particular works and its frequent use of ready made and natural objects, seem to be in conflict with the statutory definition of an 'artistic work' and with the copyright subsistence requirements of fixation and originality. The authors argue that there should not be a per se rule either against the recognition of installation works as sculptures—a specific category of artistic works—or more generally as artistic works. It will examine three of the most famous—and controversial—Turner Prize-nominated and winning works as illustrative case_x000D_ studies. The article also suggests that 'artistic purpose' is likely to have a more prominent role in the_x000D_ evaluative criteria used by courts for the classification of 'artistic works', particularly in the courts'_x000D_ approach to non-propositional installation works.