Flinders and Eisner begin their article by justifying the use of educational criticism on the basis of two analogies: the researcher-as-critic and teaching-as-art. While not disputing that such comparisons can be useful and illuminating, I argue that they are neither sufficient nor necessary as an underlying basis for their approach. Hinders and Eisner present a clear discussion of the dimensions of educational criticism that demonstrates the potential value of this approach. They also identify and address some of the challenges to such qualitative methods that come from a field that still depends on a quantitative mindset. I recognize that there are many who are not ready to accord educational criticism the value of a science on this basis, but that does not mean that it needs to be associated with in order to be useful. In the end, it is on the basis of the descriptions and practices of educational criticism that such an approach will have to be judged. Flinders and Eisner, along with their colleagues, have gone a long way in moving this process, and its practice, forward. Having said that a discussion of art is not necessary to justify their approach, some further thinking about the links between art - both the traditional and the more controversial views of it - and teaching may be illuminating. Additional analyses help us to recognize that, on the one hand, we can elevate teaching to the status of an - to be looked at and admired by connoisseurs. But, on the other hand, it also suggests that the representation, discussion, and interpretation of education can be experiences - like television, performance art, and movies - in which anyone can participate.