Since 1968, the Visual and Environmental Studies (VES) department has provided students with the opportunity to study the academic and practical aspects of the visual arts. Professor of the Practice of Studio Arts in Visual and Environmental Studies Ellen Phelan, though recently deposed as chair, left the VES department with the legacy of a strong creative program; we hope that the new chair, Kenan Professor of English Marjorie Garber, will be able to continue Phelan’s vision.

In trying to improve the quality of Harvard’s artistic education, Phelan implemented an unorthodox structure for the department. She increased the number of professional artists who served as visiting scholars, encouraged student projects and sought to bring to VES the atmosphere of a world-class art school. Her efforts to recruit faculty, fundraise for lectures and exhibitions, and obtain scarce studio space for students and visiting artists alike have led to the wide recognition of Harvard’s VES department as offering one of the most innovative undergraduate studio art program of liberal arts schools in the country.

Although her changes created a department in many ways unlike others of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences—for one thing, VES has only four tenured faculty members—Phelan’s decisions were necessary to improve Harvards art instruction and encourage the study and practice of the arts. Aspiring artists should not be limited to the study of theories of painting, sculpting and film in an academic context; they must be exposed to a variety of styles, and must be able to implement these theories in creative work and create original pieces of art. As Harvard recognized in its 1955 Brown report, the creative arts deserve to be part of the University’s educational offerings along with more standard academic disciplines.

Despite the brilliant vision Phelan provided the department, administrative and personal issues left the department disorganized and interfered with the effective implementation of programs and the quality of arts education. These administrative difficulties—such as courses not entered into the catalog promptly—were recognized for some time before measures were taken last year to reform the department.

But even the replacement of a significant portion of the departments staff was unable to quell tensions between Phelan and the department’s staff or to solve the administrative problems. Phelan’s prolongued absences from campus and her negative attitude towards the administration and some of her colleagues surely intensified the discord both within the department and with the Faculty. Phelan’s actions were disrespectful and unbecoming of the chair, and they compromised the ability of the VES department to implement her vision.

While we believe that Phelan was not an effective chair of the department, we are also concerned by the choice of her replacement. While Garber is a respected literature scholar and a talented administrator, she has no specific experience or expertise in VES. She may be able to make VES function more smoothly, but she does not and cannot have the same commitment to the visual arts as an artist, and we worry that she will be unable to provide the artistic leadership and vision necessary for the VES department. We encourage Garber to seek out advice on ways to continue Phelan’s vision of a department that emphasizes creative work. A desire to make the departments administration run more smoothly does not require any change to its substantive direction, and VES can be as efficient as other departments without losing its unique aspects to conform to their model.

That would be a terrible loss for students of the visual arts.