TEACHING ART AND ARTISTS

Reading Chris Thompson’s column in which artist-teachers comment on teaching art (see "What Is Teaching," Aug 12), it struck me that the most critical element in any conversation is agreeing upon "for purposes of discussion" definitions. (Kudos, by the way, to the Phoenix for offering, even in the midst of summer, some serious arts commentary.) The respondent artist-teachers all offered interesting, cogent comments making me wish they were merely the opening of a good panel discussion. The comments seemingly define "art" in terms of a means for creative expression, more so than as a profession requiring a certain skill set.

As a non-teaching gallerist and arts consultant, my point of view is distinctly different, especially depending on those aforementioned definitions. I want to read James Elkins’ book Why Art Cannot Be Taught; I suspect I’ll agree with him. For many years I have maintained that art schools devote too much time and effort attempting to "teach creativity," while not nearly enough teaching the many and various technical, legal, business and practical aspects of "art" as a profession.

Most art students enter art schools seeking to become professional artists. Certainly they need to study composition, design, color theory, and so on. They should also be debating aesthetics, participating in critiquing sessions, etc. Hopefully they’ll encounter teachers who will become mentors, which I would define by referring to Rose Marasco’s teacher as "the guide to assist the student to find the real for them."

"Art" however encompasses far more than tapping one’s creative impulse. There are mundane practical skills students need to learn as well. Intellectual property rights, safe materials handling, sales and consignment contracts, database management . . . the list goes on. Students, even if they recognize why they should take such courses, would probably rather take another advanced studio credit. Art schools, in part to attract students, cater too much to the wants of students at the expense of their needs. And so, fact-based, teachable, quantifiable skill sets are too often learned informally while formal classes deal in the far slipperier areas of aesthetics.

Chris White, Windham

LEAD OUT, REDUX

Sir, I agree that the removal of lead from our environment should be a top priority (see "Letters," "Get the Lead Out," by Michael Belliveau, Aug 12), but your statement that the industry would be held financially responsible and not the taxpayer is a fallacy. As we all know, any increase in a business expense is passed on to the consumer who picks up the increase. Before praising Baldacci and the Democrats who just levied a fee of 25 cents on each gallon of paint sold in Maine, find out if this tax money is going to fund a lead removal program or be sent to that big black hole in Augusta called the General Fund.

Steve Pond, Mt.Vernon