Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa
From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: A SHORT RESPONSE
Message-ID: <233@azure.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 23:55:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: azure.233
Posted: Thu Jun  6 23:55:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 02:56:33 EDT
References: <1097@druri.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 19

> [...] 
> 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.
> 

>                                          Davis Tucker

     There is a distinction between good art and bad art, but that distinction
is completely relative to the person drawing the dividing line.  There is no
*absolute* distinction.
 
     Also, what is wrong with a just plain "I like it"?  You can listen to a 
thousand reviews on a story, movie, play, etc.;  but the final judge in the
matter is you.
	
					Chris Andersen