architeKTureproblems

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU]

>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.

The computer room's about to close down, so IED
will be brief -- pompus (sic), perhaps, but brief.

If you had taken the time to read IED's posting properly,
you'd have noticed that the grounds cited for the hypothetical
architect's criticism were "inelegant and possibly unsafe
vaulting". The point is that the trained eye of the expert
enables him to notice aesthetic shortcomings of which the
less observant public is likely to be unaware.
The poor analogy is Mr. Rossi's: the opinion of the expert
(the architect) is far more valuable than the opinion of
the critic (Mr. Shallit was the man you suggested), since
the former is a creative artist working in the field in
which he passes judgment, whereas the latter is a sleazy
TV personality who has no creative experience in film whatever.
IED agrees with Mr. Rossi that in general, professional
critics' opinions have no greater intrinsic value than the
layman's. But this does not hold true with regard to the
opinions of an experienced artist.

-- Andrew Marvick

P.S. IED is really very sorry to be annoying Mr. Rossi with
     his use of the third person.