While Gaga's criticism towards Cathy was due to her writing out her view of Gaga's TEOG video with absolutely no merit, her words go far beyond Cathy.
The last instance was not the first time that Cathy has targeted Gaga, granted when she wrote her review of 'Alejandro' that was laced with backhanded compliments, she did not go on twitter and announce that she was no longer going to follow Gaga.
For all of Cathy's expertise about fashion, she reduced her words to that of any one of Gaga's detractors who make negative baseless comments and try to pass them off as a critique. That is where Gaga's criticism comes from.
It's unfortunate that many feel that critics should be able to criticize but they themselves should be immune to any and all criticism and if or when one dares to speak up for themself and question what makes this critic's opinion more important than anyone else, as Gaga has done, they are deemed butt hurt et cetera.
I went through her manifesto and made an outline of her points:
Paragraph 01 - She attacks critics for being consistently negative: focusing
more on the craftsmanship (intellectualism) rather than experience (feeling)
of the work. Then she reverses her position to make a requirement that critics
should first research and analyze a work so as to be insightful and not hurtful.
Flaw: She can't accept that some people do not share her emotional experience.
Paragraph 02 - She proposes the term 'Extreme Critic Fundamentalism' which
if anything, is meant to debase the whole art of criticism - and an art it is!
She furthers her argument that she wants reasons (scientific, mathematical,
and pertinent information) why her Titanic failed and other cruise ships
were successful - a bold affirmation of overblown ego madness.
Flaw: She condemns tastemakers while writing her own essay on proper taste.
Paragraph 03 - After establishing her wish to see objective criticism, she
goes back to her original metaphysical position with; soul, transcendence,
out-of-body, claiming a critic may not be in-touch with this faculty of sense.
Flaw: She forgot that a professional critic must use 'reasoned' judgement.
Paragraph 04 - She calls for a more modern approach to criticism, but is far
from clear on what it means. It seems like every sentence contradicts the one
previous. She is both for and against amateur journalism or more accurately
to her point, she wants Horyn to be more like a blog writer, in order to
separate herself from the common everywoman blog writer.
Flaw: She is for the modern approach only if it suits her, since this attack
stemmed from an emotionally-style critique, typical of blogging.
Paragraph 05 - She poses a jumble of rhetorical questions and calls for
the end of hierarchy or position.
Flaw: She condemns the privilege she abused when writing her opinion as a public declaration.
Conclusion: It didn't address Cathy but rather moved through her to
a much more universal critique of the art-critic and in that it was not well
argued. But it sounds high-minded and lofty. This has always been her
problem, she is too superficial and focused on appearance - the emotion of a
thing and not its substance which is what makes a real artist and what a real
critic praises.
Thanks for reading.
, I wish that would go in a column 
I went through her manifesto and made an outline of her points:
Paragraph 01 - She attacks critics for being consistently negative: focusing
more on the craftsmanship (intellectualism) rather than experience (feeling)
of the work. Then she reverses her position to make a requirement that critics
should first research and analyze a work so as to be insightful and not hurtful.
Flaw: She can't accept that some people do not share her emotional experience.
Paragraph 02 - She proposes the term 'Extreme Critic Fundamentalism' which
if anything, is meant to debase the whole art of criticism - and an art it is!
She furthers her argument that she wants reasons (scientific, mathematical,
and pertinent information) why her Titanic failed and other cruise ships
were successful - a bold affirmation of overblown ego madness.
Flaw: She condemns tastemakers while writing her own essay on proper taste.
Paragraph 03 - After establishing her wish to see objective criticism, she
goes back to her original metaphysical position with; soul, transcendence,
out-of-body, claiming a critic may not be in-touch with this faculty of sense.
Flaw: She forgot that a professional critic must use 'reasoned' judgement.
Paragraph 04 - She calls for a more modern approach to criticism, but is far
from clear on what it means. It seems like every sentence contradicts the one
previous. She is both for and against amateur journalism or more accurately
to her point, she wants Horyn to be more like a blog writer, in order to
separate herself from the common everywoman blog writer.
Flaw: She is for the modern approach only if it suits her, since this attack
stemmed from an emotionally-style critique, typical of blogging.
Paragraph 05 - She poses a jumble of rhetorical questions and calls for
the end of hierarchy or position.
Flaw: She condemns the privilege she abused when writing her opinion as a public declaration.
Conclusion: It didn't address Cathy but rather moved through her to
a much more universal critique of the art-critic and in that it was not well
argued. But it sounds high-minded and lofty. This has always been her
problem, she is too superficial and focused on appearance - the emotion of a
thing and not its substance which is what makes a real artist and what a real
critic praises.
Thanks for reading.
But what Gaga is doing unlike Cathy is giving a valid reason for why Cathy's writing is considered wrong. In journalism you write without emotion and everything you state must be supported. It isn't about putting your feelings into it, but creating something that is valid and understandable to the mass. I don't understand why unfollowing was just so terrible. And just like you said you don't know why people can't take criticism, look at Gaga... who is allowing words of Cathy to cause her to write a whole column on her
Hey iluvjeisa! Thank-you for asking, I'll clarify: When you say 'the emotion of a thing is of the
utmost importance in art' you mean you rank art based on your emotional reaction to it. Yes?
(You experience a song and if it induces a positive emotion you'll favour it above a negative)
If so, we can agree that you were responsible for interpreting the emotional content. No one
else can give it to you, you had to experience it for yourself. This is because art has no
intrinsic emotional value in itself. A cross is but a cross. To a Christian it is comforting, to
a Vampire it is repulsive, to a window it is a frame. It is its experience and nothing more.
Emotion is not inherent in a thing because we can disagree on the emotion attached.
My 'beautiful' may be your 'nothing special' and all of Western Music may be grating noise
to an African tribe. I know it's brief but I hope that's understandable and we can agree.
Although an artist starts with an idea, which by imagined-experience causes an emotional
potentiality, they create using dry materials (the note C is a frequency, paint is emotionless)
which is the essence shaped into form which is substance. When the material is formed in
a creative way it is praised for having substance value. When substance value combines
with a positive emotional experience, you have a masterpiece! That's what I mean.
Oh Gaga, you're so stupid 
