IED vs Blore

["ROSSI J.A." <rossi@nusc.ARPA>]

First of all, it is absolutely ludicrous to compare buildings and art in any
other context than 'asthetic' quality.  That is to say, an architect who
evaluates the construction of a building in terms of its potential safety
considerations has more validity that that of a person with no architectual
structural background apraising a potential safety problem.  However, there
is no more validity to an architect's apraisal of the 'asthetic' quality
of a particular building design than that of any other person farmiliar
with the asthetic appeal of various building types.  In fact there is more
reason to be sceptical of the architect's asthetic appraisal, especially
if it is negative, simply because of any obvious personal biases the
architect may have due to his/her own design considerations.
I agree with Blore fully that 'asthetic' criticism is valid regardless of the
source.  I remain unconvinced by any of IED's pompus utterances that there
is any 'super-asthetic-appreciation' domain that an individual may enter
which allows his/her word to carry more weight in an asthetics argument.

In the case of art (I include music, theater, and film here) the critics we
generally choose to listen to are the ones who we have found to be most in
agreement with our personal asthetic tastes as individuals.  So while IED
may find that he has disagreed with Gene Shallet's criticism of many films
which IED himself found to be 'the best ever' he probably over time would
begin to place less value on Shallet's criticisms of future films.  I believe
that this is the only function serve by critics (professional) in general.
Since, most often they generally find themselves divided about equally
over any given piece of art (I admit there are exceptions to the 50% rule,
especially when unconventional practices are used in the artwork), people
generally tend to weigh opinions of critics with whom they have agreed in the
past more heavily than those they are usually in disagreement.  Somehow
this reflects basic principles of reinforcement of behavior.

At a more subjective and psychological analytical level.  The EMAIL behavior
of IED as exemplified by most of his recent behavior (nonwithstanding
his annoying (in my opinion) third person presentations) suggests that he
has gone beyond that hazy line which separates the connotative meanings
of the words 'fan' and 'fanatic'.  If there was a Kate Bush religious cult,
I'm sure that IED would behave in similar devotion as do the Scientologist
followers of L. Ron Hubbard.  In fact, in order to displace his apparent
fellings of selfworthlesness, I would suggest that IED find a religious
cult, with whom he can affiliate, so that these longings for meaning can
be expressed in true cult fashion.  Although Kate Bush's music is arguably
asthetic appealing to most of us that read this list, I doubt that many
of us have a cult like attitude toward her work.  Even Doug, her strongest
non-brainwashed advocate, occasionally can find subtle problems or things
he doesn't like about her work (Of course, much of Doug's behavior can be
attributed to his over zealous sexual attraction to Kate, i.e., a matter
to be settled with gonads, not brain).  

Finally, as a non-professional critic (I don't get paid), I find much of
Kate Bush's music asthetic appealing from two points of view.  That part
of me that likes 'elevator music' with interesting lyrics finds the
two first albums appealing (esp. Lionheart, and sans the pseudo-rock
pieces).  This part of me is alos drawn to some of HoL.  The part of me
which likes interesting electronic production is especially drawn to
TD and much of WtW.  Never for Ever is just a nice pop album which I
ddon't attend to much, but like anyway.  Calling Kate's music the greatest
thing since sliced bread must remain an opinion of IED and whomever
believes similarly, and be respected as such.  That is as a personal criticism
to be viewed in no more light than that of Hofmann or Wicinski (who are about
as contrary as you find on this list), in who's opinions I tend to trust more
due to the non fanatic exposition (Coarse maybe, deranged maybe but not
fanatic to one artist). 

So, IED, as per a long winded discussion here last year about the critical
value of using explicatives as adjectives or adverbs lacking any 'super-
critical' clout, so too your over zealous, pompus and fanatical comments
are probably erased daily by people who still are in control of their own
choice behavior.  We all know that you are a Kate fanatic.  Personally,
I'm tired of hearing about it.  Maybe, you would do better writing your
EMAIL to net.religion or somplace you might find others like yourself (If
there is no cultlike talk in net.religion, I appologize for suggesting IED
write to your group.

John
------