Anthony Everitt's discourse on the iniquities of the research assessment exercise's appraisal of creative artistic work (THES, June 20) is wide of the mark and out of date. ³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ Funding Council for England funding of arts research is not a "scam" that "almost nobody talks about".

It is a long-standing problem that Christopher Frayling, among many others, addressed in the first issue of Point. It should have been sorted out before the first RAE, not left until after the second one.

The proposal of an "Arts and Design Research Council" to resolve the situation is a typical "jobs-for-the-boys" panacea which will cost dear and achieve nothing. It is, of course, epistemologically fatuous to seek to define artistic creation as "research", and both artists and HEFCE are guilty of hypocrisy in trying to force it into this mould.

The test of artistic achievement is whether it provides a definable aesthetic experience, and/or (in the case of the crafts) a demonstration of a specific skill. If it plausibly does, then its quality can be measured, for RAE purposes by:

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

1. The artist's own statement as to what he or she is trying to achieve

2. Critical appreciation in the media. One would hope that the RAE would provide peer review

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

3. A hierarchy of (eg exhibition) venues, such as: i. A one person, city centre prestige venue; ii) A group, city centre, prestige venue; iii) A prestige foreign venue; iv) A one-person, prestige provincial venue; v) A group, prestige provincial venue; vi) Multiple venues.

Maybe this is so obvious that it is not worth saying. However, it was not said before the previous RAEs, and I have seen no public discussion along these lines. In this institution we have followed them since the last RAE and, although we have had arguments, no artist has so far rejected the framework.

Edward Cooper

University reader, chairman, research subcommittee

Department of art, design, silversmithing and jewellery, London Guildhall University