One wants to ask why so much attention has been given to building a case for four curricular divisions or categories of art learning which will supposedly address all that with which we ought to consider ourselves as art teachers. Why not three or five or another number? Are we being asked to accept that the designation of four disciplines is a truthful reflection of what is or of want ought to be? Why has such eare been given to building boundary edges to charity which concepts distinguish the four designated categories? How can excerpts from single representatives of the disciplines in question do more than give a highly abstracted definition of what one field is when compared to another? What are we as art teachers to do with such meager information? Even a cursory reading of material not bound up in the concept of DBAE will show that what goes on in the art world is really much messier than the four designated categories would suggest(Becken 1982).