IED0DXM@UCLAMVS.BITNET (11/01/86)
>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.