Excessive rabidity vs. excessive rapidity?

[IEDSRI@aol.com]

 DSearch (David Reff?) writes:

 > But I do admit it's beyond me why those in the latter camp
 > insist in coming down so hard on those of us who are merely
 > fans and not fanatics.

A legitimate complaint, one IED, as one who still tends to come down on
people like a ton of bricks, however gentle he tries to be, feels a
responsibility to answer.  

First, he agrees that there's no excuse for _ad_hominem_ responses to
postings openly critical of Kate Bush's work; not for the first time IED
apologizes for any remarks which may have given the appearance of
uncalled-for vituperation.  As much as he would like it not to be so, he is
and probably always will be a zealot.

He would like to think, though, that the main reason for his
sometimes uncharitable defense of Kate Bush's work in the face of
"critical" Love-Hounds postings is that these are, more often
than not, too-hasty expressions of the writers' fleeting personal
preferences.  

If one wants to say, for example, that "Experiment IV [is] a bit
pretentious," or that "Lionheart isn't quite as strong [as TKI]," one has a
perfect right to do so, of course; but what value can the skeptical reader
attach to such judgements in the total absence of substantive, substantiating
argument?

Have our customs of public discourse really declined to such an extent that
any writer's pronouncement about any subject at all must be received with
perfect equanimity (and the implication of agreement), no matter how flippant
or flimsy that pronouncement might be?  In our sometimes excessively
democratic society we have all learned (some of us, admittedly, with
reluctance) that everyone has an equal right to a voice in the public
information-stream; but that doesn't mean that we should (_caveo_ IED's
introduction of the unfashionably moralism-pregnant mode) all spill our ids
out into that already roiling current armed with a false confidence that
whatever we say must be of value simply because we have said it.
  
Anyway, as long as IED (along with others who share at least some of his
views) is here to respond, those who are rash enough glibly to criticize Kate
Bush's work will continue to find their views challenged, with the request
(whether humbly or arrogantly made) that REASONS be supplied to substantiate
the criticism.     

That said, however, David asks some wonderful questions, to wit:

 > [1.] What if Kate decides to market vials of her sweat under 
 > the guise of artistic expression? [2.] Can Kate still do no
 > wrong?  [3.] What if she decides she's not just a
 > singer-songwriter and film director, she's also a painter?
 > [4.] They'll be great paintings just because they're hers?
 > [5.] And if she moves on to write books, [6.] design
 > buildings, [7.] build cities....???

 1. Could the geneticists out there tell IED whether sweat contains DNA?  If
so, he for one would gladly pay a good price for a phial of Kate's sweat --
in the event that cloning should some day become an affordable service.
 Imagine a world filled with millions of Kate Bushes -- one might reasonably
expect at least one album every...five years! 

 2. Wrong? As far as IED is aware, Kate has still done no "wrong", unless it
be to herself (smoking, arguably, for example). But artistic error?  If so,
they are so minor as not to be worth identifying.  Anyway, an artistic
misfire by an artist of Kate Bush's caliber would certainly be as interesting
and even artistically nourishing as the finest work we could ever hope to
receive from any other living 
artist. 

 3. About a year ago Kate Bush sold (for charity) a pair of framed images of
her own making.  From their descriptions (and a not-very-helpful photo), they
sounded like perfectly serviceable "conceptual" artworks.  More importantly,
they added
insight into Kate Bush's lifelong thematic vocabulary, and in that respect
any visual art by her would have value, both to art and to scholarship.

 4. No, they won't necessarily be "great" paintings, just because they're
hers (however one defines that modifier).  But again, even Kate Bush's
relatively smaller artistic achievements (could any of her works ever somehow
be accurately identified as such) would have great value to the enthusiast of
her art, because as the product of her mind, they would expand our
appreciation of and insight into the rest of her production.

 5. Do you seriously propose that a booklength text by Kate Bush could be
without value?  And if you concede that such a thing would certainly have at
least some value, by what criteria would you measure that value against that
of another work of literature?  And, whether you were able to do that or not,
wouldn't whatever the book offered be bound to add to our store of knowledge
about her art, and therefore have great value no matter what the judgement of
its critics regarding its literary merit?

 6. Apparently Kate Bush has been doing just this thing (designing buildings)
recently (or at least keeping a close eye on the renovation of a listed
building in the Reading area)! If you were invited to the housewarming, would
you really turn it down? 

 7. Ooh!  A city by Kate Bush!  It's a fabulous concept!  It sounds like an
absolutely terrific thing -- what would lead you to think such a project
might not be worthwhile? Surely not quibbling objections about a lack of
training in urban planning, engineering, architecture, etc. -- surely Kate
Bush could afford technical advisors. 

IED thanks you for your wonderfully intriguing questions and comments, David,
and means no disrespect -- honest.

-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
   S         R        I