We are constantly changing our philosophy of living. Relative values in life fluctuate with our experiences. Today we say that this is most important to our happiness, our purpose in life; tomorrow it may be something else. But however the purpose may change, and whatever form it may take, if the intellectual concept and emotional content are strong enough it must be expressed. To express anything requires order and form and enough imagination to combine the elements that go toward re-creating again this concept in the auditor's mind. While living in the dormitory of a very conservative Bible School a number of years ago, the writer complained to a teacher about the total absence of opportunity for self-expression. The teacher replied, You don't need to express yourself. She was not an artist. She had never been in a class in Oral Interpretation. The painter expresses himself through one medium, the musician through another, the architect through another, the poet through yet another. Through every form of activity we find the creator—an expression of a personality through one medium or another. Not that all forms of activity are artistic; there is a difference between the artist and the artisan, the creator and the skilled. But all artists are creators. And all artists create out of a need for expression. Hughes Mearns seems to think that artistry cannot be taught. He says, In artistry, neither theme nor method of treatment may come from the teacher. These are the business of the artist, never of the instructor. If parent and teacher keep hands off and wait, personality will have a chance to express itself; the sign of success will be a refusal to receive help, as being both unnecessary and impertinent. Accordingly, the ultimate product arises out of the creator's own imagination, and will be an expression of his own personality. One ought not to refer from Mearn's statement that the teacher is helpless in the presence of her potential artists. If artistry cannot be taught, the imagination, at least, its greatest tool, can be stimulated and the technique of form suggested. This fact has been demonstrated time and again in classes in Oral Interpretation. Our purpose here is not to argue whether it can be done, but rather, whether it should be done. Is Oral Interpretation justified as an art, and as such does it deserve a place in the curriculum? If the interpreter feels the need for expression, are we justified in encouraging him in that expression? Or, was the Bible teacher right? Is it a thing of conceit? Should the ego be squelched ? Or, was the teacher wrong ? Should the student be taught methods of improving on his creations—his art ? We defend art in general because it is coordinate with the development of life. We defend interpretative art specifically because it is life. The medium used is not a paintbrush or clay, but the human mind