rossi@NUSC.ARPA ("ROSSI J.A.") (10/31/86)
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 ------
nessus@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (11/08/86)
> [John Rossi:] 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). Now, Mr. Rossi, please keep your amature pop-psychology to yourself. My ideal object of sexual attraction is the lead singer of Romeo Void, not KB. Though I must say that the book of photos I just got of Kate as a little kid show her to be a very cute little child indeed. But music is much more important than sex. When I fell in love with Kate's music, I didn't jerk off for nearly a whole year... |>oug