sam@bu-cs.UUCP (10/07/86)
Okay. Music is art, right? Or at least it's *supposed* to be
art, anyway. We could say that Kate Bush is to Michelangelo as
Doug thinks Madonna is to my 2-year-old cousin's coloring book.
Now, most sane people would say that Michelangelo was a better
artist than my cousin, as most of us hold that Kate is a better
musician than Madonna. But art critics the world over vary
in taste. I happen to prefer Monet to Dali, but someone out
there (probably Doug and Jim especially ;-) may think that Dali
is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's a matter of taste.
Dali and Monet are not particularly similar in style, therefore
they are hard to compare objectively. All art is hard to compare
objectively. Art *is* subjective.
The Dreaming is a great album, and seems to appeal to the people
on this list more. Yet someone who's listened to Frank Sinatra
all their life will be able to deal with The Kick Inside much more
handily. Why does one album have to be *better*? Better is such
a sucky word when trying to gauge art.
*NO*, I do not want to get into a huge discussion of "What is Art?"
and blah blah blah and so on and so forth. I am completely ill-equipped
to deal with such a discussion, having never taken an art history course,
or even a good philosophy course. I just wanted, as usual, to put in
my two cents worth.
"..it's hard to get straight answers between the lines that border
right and wrong..."
- Shelli
P.S. Oh yeah, almost forgot. For the record, I like Hounds of Love
better, too, IED.