As I wrote to you in response to an earlier article about Tate Modern (”For Art’s Sake,” May 13, 2000), “it remains to be seen whether the Tate’s themes—the body, landscape, still life, etc.—will survive scrutiny, but the canonical approach certainly deserves a challenge.” I also prophesied that “the Tate will make history by that challenge alone.” In tomorrow’s issue you return to this topic (”Wrong Key at the Tate,” June 17, 2000), this time fortified by quotes from a couple of worthies from the British art world. David Sylvester writes in the London Review of Books that chronology is inherent in every piece of art rather than a fabrication of art history, whereas Waldemar Januszczak writes in the Sunday Times that the Tate’s hanging policy shrinks from saying anything definite about its collection. However, if chronology is so intrinsic, why does it have to be paraded? If the themes are so indefinite, why such a passionate furore? The problem is apparently elsewhere. Time-honored professional competencies are at stake here. I wonder whether the artists themselves would be as sanguine as the art historians and art critics about the canonical approach of yesteryear. Minus those artists who specialize in poking fun at the whole spectacle, of course.