Vermorel: "My Kate Bush" in Creative Camera 1985

[Wieland Willker <willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de>]

Hello friends,
I think it was |>oug, who mentioned this paper and I finally got a copy of
it. What can I say? Anyone knows this article?
I still have no final opinion of this Fred-guy. He wrote two strange books
which I read with great interest and he gave later explanations (e.g. in
HG and elsewhere) that his intension was to demonstrate overshooting fandom
or so. I think this is more an excuse than the truth. I believe, he was at
least for some time a completely mad 'fan' too, but couldn't cope with it.
Later he calmed down a bit and tried to analyze himself.  
Here the article comes in: 

Fred Vermorel "My Kate Bush" in Creative Camera 252 (Dec. 1985) 

It is a very obscure mixture of quotes and photos. No 'real' article.
he shows his creativity by combining completely unrelated photos with
quotes about fetishes. 
Again the class photo known from his earlier books appeared. Nobody can
convince me that this is Kate Bush. Does anyone know if KaTe is visible on
this photograph? IED? The photo is in the 'Secret History' on page 86. If
she is there, she must be in the top row, but I think she's not there at
all. Where are you KaTe???

first page: 3 photos: KaTe (Lionheart), two permafrost-scientists (??!!), a
picure of roses. 
second page: Classphoto with enlargement second person from left (who is
not KaTe). Two photos of Karl Marx combined with one of KaTe (??!!)
third page: KaTe at East Wickham farm garden.
last page: a guy from an Edwardian family album (mad) and a photo of a
Vietnamese woman in a lascivious pose. 

Several nice fetish quotes are added. I do not see any connection between
these photos and the quotes. (Except maybe that KaTe is his fetish)

For example: 

"Binet observes that 'for fetishists the sense of perception of the loved
object is a source of pleasure superiour even to sexual sensation'. The
fetish is not to be confused, he states, with the stimulation sought by a
mere jaded sexual appetite in need of unusual excitants. The true fetishist
seeks and prizes a particular species of stimulus because it gives him
pleasure 'in itself, and for itself'. The fetish is not only a means to
sexual arousal, but is an end in itself. Amorous fetishism is a form of
adoration; its origin lies in a 'purely cerebral' need which is incapable
of satisfaction in a directly physical way. It is the need, and the
pursuit, of beauty."
  -Vernon W. Grant "A Fetishistic Theory of Amorous Fixation", 
   J. Soc. Psych 1949

"The form is fetishized. It appears to be a thing endowed with boundless
powers..."

"... it was widely believed that simply to make an image of the god was not
enough to establish the close sympathetic connexion between the image and
the good;... but by the proper rites you could induce the diety to animate
it, to make it an organ for his reception of your worship and his bestowal
of help."
  -Edwyn Bevan, Holy Images 1940

"True love is always requited" -Jaques Lacan


Crazy, but in some way interesting. What do you make of it?