(Nijgh Publishing). Metzelaar stated in the brochure that he was deeply concerned about the neglect of education in the visual arts in the Netherlands. All attention was given to the subjects that promoted the mind and material prosperity while nothing was thought of that "could be influential to the ennoblement of feeling or the formation of the heart. A central criticism of the bill was that fine engineering was not included in the new course. This was important because, in his opinion, a close connection should be made in education between the fields of work of the painter, the architect and the sculptor. Furthermore, the three visual arts should be well matched and integrated with craft and industry, so that everything in our daily environment would bear the stamp of art. The actual practical application of the learned aesthetics should also be part of this education.As for the Polytechnic School in Delft, he was of the opinion that it could continue to be responsible for the education of engineers and the scientific training of architects. However, the future architects should in addition receive a thorough artistic education, as outlined.Another concrete point of criticism was the in his opinion much too low level of drawing education of the then secondary school in comparison with that at the earlier (city) drawing schools. He had observed the latter in 1869 at the International Exhibition of Objects for the Household and Business of the Craftsman in the Paleis voor Volksvlijt in Amsterdam. Metzelaar advocated that architecture fit in well with the other visual arts and that technique did not predominate.