To the Editors:

It was with disappointment that I read Hilton Kramer’s recent discussion of the National Endowment for the Arts Seminar on Art Criticism (“Criticism Endowed: Reflections on a Debacle,” November, 1983). While there was merit in many of his comments, the article pointed to a conspiratorial atmosphere that simply didn’t exist. There were nearly thirty of us present: most of us favored clear writing, frowned on conflicts of interest, and, in fact, approached the issues as directly and skeptically as Mr. Kramer did.

I have been a frequent critic of the Endowment in years past, and this was my first invitation to such a meeting. Anyone who has lectured on the museum or university circuit or written for a scholarly journal will have received some funds from the National Endowment, if only indirectly, but, then, that number must also include Mr. Kramer. Relatively few of the panelists at the seminar had been riding any gravy train. I came prepared to look at the National Endowment critics’ fellowships with objectivity and a critical eye. I offered strong criticism, as did many of our fellow commentators. At no time did Mr. Kramer find himself alone on any matter of debate.

There were problems with the critics’ fellowships in the past. The purpose of the seminar was to improve the state of criticism in the future. While no program of the Endowment or of the government itself can be entirely free of conflicts of interest, there were no dire conflicts