Let art be just what it is

To the editor:

I was surprised in the least to see that a short blurb was in the paper from Southeast professor Ron Clayton. What didn't surprise me was the fact that he was in some way showing how backwards the area was, or is. The man gives true meaning to the name artist in that his ego is more masterful than most of his body of art.

I would have to say that Ron Clayton is not the only person who can put paint on a surface and call it art. But he is probably correct in stating that he is in a cultural minority in the area. One that keeps to itself in a "learned" manner of segregation.

I myself can see the beauty in the lilies of the field, a picture of a cornfield in bloom and even a portrait of a person made with soy-based paints. I would suggest that a person who has obtained the master's degree in Mr. Clayton's possession would at least allow for an open mind and not a myopic view of what "his" kind view art to be.

Big brother is dead with 1984 behind us. I would appreciate it much if Mr. Clayton would quit trying to rewrite what art is supposed to be and to let it be just what it is: a person's interpretation of an event to another person.

PAT PATTERSON, Cape Girardeau