Gogan, Van Gouge and Stevedore Dooley notwithstanding, an education in the arts is still a spell idea

Should art and music be taught in the classroom? Or are they something our young can pick up some day on their trips to Europe?

Since I raised that question the other day I have received a flood of mail, most of it in favor of teaching the arts, and the sooner the better.

I received little support for reader Myron Kayton’s opinion that “the liberal arts are wasted on kids anyway.”

My inquiry was initiated by a Santa Monica College art professor’s complaint that his students spelled Gauguin as Gogan, Van Gogh as Van Gouge, Salvador Dali as Stevedore Dooley and Pablo Picasso as Pablum Picasso.

My own conclusion was that “we ought to keep after those little nippers until they can spell Van Gogh.”

Gary Peters of Cal State Long Beach, department of geography, writes that he sympathizes with the distressed professor, but wonders if there wasn’t more imagination than ignorance in those misspellings.

“Coming up with a name like To Lose a Truck was no accident, even if it seems disrespectful to a great artist. Perhaps Pablum Picasso was more an expression of that student’s interpretation of Picasso’s work than an error in spelling. . . .”

Good point. I suspect that the student, not knowing how to spell Toulouse-Lautrec, decided that if he was going to misspell it he might as well have some fun.

Other readers suggest that the correct spelling of an artist’s name is unimportant, as long as the student becomes acquainted with the artist’s work.

“My suggestion to Prof. William Hill,” writes Peg Morell of Buena Park, “is that he worry less about spelling and more about the spark he may be able to kindle within the hearts and minds of his students.

“Students have little enough opportunity to develop intuitive and creative skills. To borrow from Betty Edwards (‘Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain’), ‘the right brain--the dreamer, the artificer, the artist--is lost in our school system and goes largely untaught. . . .’ ”

I can vouch for Prof. Hill’s dedication and his inspiring classroom work, though it may be that some of his students were putting him on.

In my earlier column I stated that UCLA had recently considered dropping its undergraduate fine arts program, and that it had previously dropped its undergraduate school of journalism.

I have received a letter of clarification from Charles E. Young, chancellor of UCLA:

“I certainly agree with your . . . point that an education in the arts is a vital part of being an educated person.

“I’d like to be sure, however, that the record is clear on one point. UCLA is not considering dropping the fine arts. What has been proposed is that we maintain virtually all the arts courses we have now, but that we restructure the fine arts in such a way that there is more of a symbiotic relationship with the humanities.

“The initial proposals spoke of creating a Graduate School of the Performing Arts and folding the undergraduate curriculum into the College of Letters and Science. Since the proposal has been put forth for discussion, it’s clear that a good case can be made for retaining some undergraduate fine arts degree programs.

“Exactly how all this will sort out is not yet definite. We are still gathering reactions to the proposal and some very stimulating counterproposals. Whatever the final outcome of the organizational changes, the intent is to strengthen the fine arts at UCLA. Any other proposed outcome will be unacceptable.”

On journalism, Chancellor Young said: “My response as to why we no longer have a school of journalism is much longer. . . .”

Writes Ronald Webster of Long Beach: “I received my degree in fine arts . . . against the advice of every teacher I had in college.”

Webster called his art professor “Coach,” and the professor liked the name so much he had a sweat shirt made with ART COACH on it.

“About the time I had to declare a major (I found) a clipping on the bulletin board. It listed the marketability of college degrees from most to least, with Aeronautical Engineering at the top and Fine Arts at the bottom. Coach once told me when reviewing my portfolio, ‘You aren’t at the top of the class. You’re it.’ ”

Terrie Bagnuolo of Newbury Park urges teaching fine arts in the lower grades: “I currently teach (as a parent volunteer) a beautiful curriculum of fine arts appreciation to fourth, fifth and sixth graders. The fourth-graders are by far the most interested, the most attentive, and the most eager. . . . Delaying a fine arts education to college, or even high school, may be too late in this high-tech, fast-moving society. . . .”

Elaine Hamilton of Pasadena deplores force-feeding art to children before they can enjoy it: “It saddens me to see young people turned off to the pleasures of reading by having it shoved down their throats like cod-liver oil (which is undoubtedly also good for you. . . .)”

I sympathize with Mrs. Hamilton’s idea that we ought not to force art on children before they can swallow it; but I suspect, as Mrs. Bagnuolo says, that they can swallow it earlier than we think. In any case, I will not concede that cod-liver oil is good for you.

Don Waddle of Buena Park suggests a novel but valid reason for knowing the arts: “It occurred to me that without liberal arts study I couldn’t solve today’s crossword puzzle--or yesterday’s, or any of them. . . . For me that would truly be a disaster!”

You never know when it will come in handy to know how to spell Van Gogh.