Symmetry yrtemmyS

[Doug Alan <nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>]

> From: henrik@blblbl.UUCP (Larry DeLuca)

> Symmetry must be used sparingly to be effective.

Can wallpaper not be a valid form of art because it does not use
symmetry sparingly?  Are crystaline structures ugly?  Is Aboriginal
music ineffective because it is repetitious?  What about Minimalist
music?  Was every last bit of dance done over the centuries that has
not used symmetry sparingly at all, a complete waste of time?

I beg to differ.

> However, I still feel that there's nothing new said -- bouncing up
> and down to the bass line while using pointed fingers to indicate
> significant downbeats while mouthing the words at the camera doesn't
> do it for me (maybe it does for you).

(1) There's a lot more to the video than that, and you know it.

(2) I'm sure lip-synching is not Kate's idea of high art either.  On
the other hand, a pop music video is a certain genre that has it's
rules.  One that is very hard to break and get airplay is the rule
about lip-syncing.  The sole reason that MTV would not play Kate's
real video of "Running Up That Hill" for many months was because it
was not lip-synched.  Like it or not, in past, the primary purpose of
Kate's videos were for promotion.  "Art" was fit into the cracks that
promotion allows.  Recently, Kate has become more interested in the
video as a primary form of art, and thus now breaks the lip-synching
rule.  This, however, almost certainly makes them less likely to be
seen much on MTV.

> While I find Kate Bush to be one of the more creative people out
> there, I also find things of hers I don't like as well.  I would
> worry if I didn't.  There are even aspects of her work I would call
> bad.  I try to listen with a critical ear to whatever I hear,
> because I can learn the most from it that way.  Further, when
> something that *really* impresses me comes along (like a lot of the
> layering in _Watching You Without Me_, or the sum total effect of
> _The Ninth Wave_, or _This Woman's Work_) I am doubly gratified).  I
> have little respect for people who criticize without creating, and
> even less respect for those who blindly suck in everything someone
> puts out, no matter what it is, because they're God so it's got to
> be good (Even Doris Humphrey had her clunkers ;-) ).

Are you trying to convince me that you are more objective than "fans"
because you dislike some of Kate's songs?  What makes you think that
fans like every song?  I don't like "Wow".  I don't like "Babooshka".
I don't like "Watching You Without Me", "Hounds of Love", "Coffee
Homeground", etc.  I think you are profoundly mistaken if you are
working on the assumption that somehow your dislike of some material
makes you in any way more "objective" than anyone else.

Regarding those who criticize without creating -- it seems to me that
an artist is automatically biased.  Not that a non-artist critic is
necessarily unbiased, but I think you are going to have to do a lot of
work to convince anyone that an artist, who has probably a very vested
interest in a certain artistic viewpoint, is going to be more unbiased
than someone who may have no vested interest.

> Further, I never meant this to turn into a discussion of the
> choreographic art, as I don't feel that really applies.  My original
> question was "What does Kate Bush think about her early videos (in
> retrospect)?".  When I received |>ougie-Poo's outlandish emotional
> attack for slinging mud at an idol (as opposed to an answer to my
> question) as well as his blanket statement that everything "Kate"
> does is awesome I was required to elaborate.

What "outlandish emotional attack"?  What, pray tell, are you
talking about, Larry?  

This is your original article on the matter:

> I've always wondered why Kate Bush choreographed her early videos (and
> let Keefe direct so many of them).

> I really respect her as a musical artist, but frankly she's a
> *terrible* choreographer (though I will admit that her cinematic view
> (as well as her choreography) have improved somewhat with _Hair of the
> Hound_).

> How does she feel about the videos?  About her choreography?  Why
> doesn't she hire out to someone who can do a better job (I understand
> the DIY feeling and find it runs heavy in myself, but still...)?

And here was my reply:

	Well, you don't have to like Kate's choreography, but that
	certainly doesn't make it "terrible".  It's certainly unique,
	and that alone is worth a whole lot.

Was that an "outlandish emotional attack"?  All I said, after you
sweepingly asserted that Kate Bush is a "*terrible*" choreographer, is
that just because you don't like it, doesn't make it terrible.  You
say that all you were doing was asking an innocent question, but I
suspect that 9 out of 10 of the average reader would take your message
as an attack.  Face it -- the word "terrible" is an attack.

> I gave specific examples of things I didn't like.  I pointed out
> clear reasons why I didn't like them, and further, I gave
> references.  |>oug sputtered and sparked but didn't come up with
> anything to do except sling more mud and spin the discussion off
> sideways, talking about "`Kate's' limited training" etc., etc., etc.

As if quoting such nonsense as "symmetry is death" is supposed to
convice anybody of anything?  Just because some famous person said it,
doesn't make it true.  And if you are basing your whole mindset on
such drivel, then everything you say on the subject is likely to be
drivel.  This is a perfect example of the way in which an artist can
be a particularly bad critic.  And it really irks me when people start
quoting the philosphical musing of artists as being in any way
philosophically worthy just because the artist is a good artist.  Most
artists I've listened to (including Kate) say just about the most
philosophically inane things imaginable.

With your style of argument I could prove that Kate's music is also
worthless.  Stravinsky once said "Consonace has no place in music".
Sure thing, dear Igor!  Stravinsky may have been a great artist, but
this statement by him is nothing but utter rubbish.

> However, whenever an artist puts out something for the public to
> view, criticism of some sort will result.  Mostly I found her
> choreography, while occasionally interesting, to not be anywhere
> near the standards she has set for herself musically.  I wanted to
> know if she felt this way.  I wanted to know why she chose to do it
> herself instead of calling in someone else to advise her.  Since
> y'all claim to be true authorities on "Kate" I thought I'd ask and
> see if anyone turned up anything interesting in an interview someone
> might know about.  Can anyone answer my original question?

In an attempt to answer your question, I'll tell you that Kate doesn't
particularly like her first two albums.  She feels much better about
her third album, "Never for Ever".  And she's very proud of her fourth
and fifth albums.  I'm not the Mouth of Kate, but my guess would be
that Kate would have similar feelings about her videos -- she'd
probably say that she is only really proud of her videos since
"Running Up That Hill".  There might be a few videos before then
(perhaps "Army Dreamers", for instance) that she'd say she's proud of.

Regarding why Kate didn't get anyone in to help her on choreography --
you are wrong -- she has.  She's almost always always been assisted to
some degree by a more experienced choreographer, and several respected
choreographers have said that they find Kate's choreography
interesting.  Her stage shows got almost unanimously glowing reviews.
So, you see, there are least some others that disagree with you.

Regarding why Kate didn't want to get someone to do it all for her in
order to come up with a total product that might be better...  There
are three possible approaches Kate could take to any art she does:
(1) Hire someone to do something anything she thinks someone else can do
better.  (2) Do absolutely everything herself, no matter how bad at
parts of it she may be.  (3) Something inbetween 1 and 2.

Knowing the humble kind of person Kate is, if she were to pick option
1, she wouldn't do anything at all.  She hire someone else to do
everything.  Kate doesn't pick option 2 because there are some things
she knows other people can do better, but probably more importantly,
many of the things she doesn't do herself, she doesn't have the free
time or overriding interest to do herself.  So, she uses option 3.
Why in the large domain that 3 affords, did she decide to do her own
choreography?  Probably because she was interested in choreography,
she enjoyed doing it, and she wanted to get better at it.  She would
have no chance to get better at choreography if she didn't use her
opportunity to *do* choreography.

The same thing is true for her now directing her own videos.  None of
the videos that Kate has directed herself have been quite as good as
the video for "Running Up That Hill", which was directed by someone
else.  Why doesn't she hire that director, then, for all her videos?
Why do them herself?  She's directing her videos now because film
directing is something she wants to get better at.

|>oug

"Is that what you are?  The most powerful being in the universe and
 you're just a puppet following a script?"
"We're all puppets, Laurie.  I'm just a puppet who can see the
 strings."