Discusses the criticisms of discipline-based art education published in the March 1988 issue of "Art Education." Responds to the arguments of Peter London, Helen Muth, Norma K. Pittard, and Karen Hamblen. States that art education would be better served if the energy devoted to criticism was directed toward constructive ends. (GEA)

Develops a conception of the arts as cognitive activities. Draws implications of this conception for the schools including the following: concepts of talent and lack of talent have been used too long to cover up for weak or non-existent arts programs, and full cognitive development cannot exist without substantial arts instruction. (JDH)