Here I am!

My artist friend Caesar Attard has taken my letter to the editor (June 29) as a personal attack and has retaliated in a fashion that took me by surprise (July 10).

If he were to consider my letter more carefully he would be the first one to realise that I never had him or any of his generation (who certainly cannot be referred to as the "new breed" of art teachers) in mind.

And if he took affront at my remark that certain art teachers (of our generation) with a background of School of Art training, had not held themselves responsible to pass on what they had learnt, I feel that he should have been the last one to comment since he says in his letter that he had "exercised authority and over-protection" in his contact with "students from the age of five to the age of 20". It is apparent that he is in rebellion against this method of teaching, however.

I am glad to note that in other points we seem to see eye to eye and if for nothing else this correspondence may be fruitful in the sense that we can get the authorities that be to sit up and take note. I am sure Mr Attard would back me in that something has to be done to create more opportunities for the basic training of drawing and painting at University. The highest and noblest institution has to cater for a global education in art before bestowing a warrant on prospective art teachers.

As to his interpretation of the French term laissez faire which I used in my letter, I have to point out that he is not quite correct. By that phrase I meant exactly what it means and that is "to allow to do" and certainly not what he says: "to move with the times". Some art teachers allow students to do whatever they feel like doing simply because they feel unsure whether they should exercise control over the discipline of drawing. Since when has the wonder of producing a good drawing become abhorrent? At the risk of appearing self-righteous, as he described me, I would say that by letting our students (who are just that - students) work whichever way they please, and without pointing out the importance of studying a work from observation, we are ourselves undermining the importance of acquiring a sound artistic foundation. After all, isn't that one of the requirements for a student sitting for his or her Matsec exam? By all means let the student "move with the times" or should I say, let the artist move with the times. The time will come soon enough for the true artist to show his mettle.

Mr Attard quotes from my letter: "We recognise the validity of academic training and exercise it concurrently with a freer mode of expression", and remarks: "I hope art education does not just boil down to this!" I concede that art education boils down to more than just well studied work from life and exercises in a free mode of expression (whose relative importance, by his remark, he is himself acknowledging) but Mr Attard is not keeping in mind the level of art education that I was discussing. My remarks were directed towards the teaching of art in upper secondary and post secondary classes and not the further artistic training normally associated with a School of Art.

As to his snide, and uncalled for, remark that I could be posing as a descendant of Caruana Dingli or Emvin Cremona, I can only say that I could do worse by championing some artist whose only claim to fame is to his being blatantly shocking (no Maltese artist in mind).