To the Editor of the Crimson:

The announcement in Tuesday's Crimson that the Fine Arts Department is to offer a course in camouflage came as a distinct shock. That camouflage is a "fine art" to be practiced by artists and their parasites is a fallacy which should long ago have been discredited. Moreover, the Fogg is incompetent to deal even with the very minor part of the problem which painting comprises.

They acknowledge that drafting and model-making are important aspects, which it is obvious should be handled by a better equipped department such as engineering or architecture. The important phase of aerial photography is now being taught by the Geography Department.

Any intelligent contributions to camouflage will come from the concerted action of several branches of the University, but why should the correllation be under the obviously unqualified leadership of the Fogg? Are we to believe that they will trim their long hari, shelve their academicism and adopt the necessary experimental attitude? The exact bearing of the "color-value theory" on camouflage is almost as obscure as the motives behind the Fogg's sudden announcement. It is imperative that such a vital and, prior to Pearl Harbor; such a widely disparaged subject be put under competent direction if it is to make any contribution either to the students or to the science of camouflage. It is about time that the pall which has so long surrounded the far corner of the Yard be used to obscure a more vital military objective. Edward C. Weren '42.