In this article, the author analyzes Arthur Efland's "Art and Cognition," which advocates study of the visual arts for its cognitive benefits. The author argues that Efland's cognitive premises are largely sound but that his specific recommendations often belie the general principles he espouses. Efland focuses on the interpretation of baffling works that deliberately flout traditional views of what constitutes a work of art. He thereby ignores his own emphasis on the role of categorization in human cognition. Moreover, although he stresses the cognitive importance of individual goals and intentions, Efland favors sociopolitical interpretations. Such interpretations disregard contradictory evidence of the artist's likely intentions and downplay the personal value of art. The author views Efland's emphasis on visual metaphor as inconsistent with his recognition that the visual arts possess a distinctive immediacy and directness. (Contains 5 notes.)