Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!duke!ndd
From: ndd@duke.UUCP (Ned Danieley)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: A SHORT RESPONSE
Message-ID: <5896@duke.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 10:43:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: duke.5896
Posted: Wed Jun  5 10:43:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 01:45:47 EDT
References: <1097@druri.UUCP>
Reply-To: ndd@duke.UUCP (Ned D. Danieley)
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 23

In article <1097@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes:
>
>4) I realize that what I say is my opinion, and I am surprised at the number
>   of people who have seen fit to inform me of this obvious fact. Lighten up.
>   At least I have attempted to support my opinion with examples and logic.
>
>5) You may think that Norman Rockwell is vastly superior to Van Gogh, but you
>   would be wrong. There is good art, and there is bad art, and to deny that
>   there is a distinction between them is to lump greatness with mediocrity.
>   Otherwise, there is no basis for *any* critical statement except "I like
>   it". Which is incredibly egocentric.
>

I think that the thing that bothers me is the dogmatic tone of
your articles, all of which sound much like your point #5. I don't
see how you can say that there is good art and bad art; that seems
to me a little too strong. It may be your opinion, but where are the
examples and logic: how do you *know* that Norman Rockwell isn't
superior to Van Gogh? Maybe if you would lighten up, some of your
critics would too.

Ned Danieley
duke!ndd