(Whispers in case
Bethberry is listening at the door)
Is the art seperate from the artist - can we treat the art as if it simply appeared out of nowhere, or pretend that we know nothing about the artist - or
should we do that? The art stands alone, & that's all we have. If the artist meant anything, had any reason for painting the picture, that purpose should have gone to the grave with him. What was Leonardo's purpose in painting the Mona Lisa, & even if he had one, should we care?
Or, how important is Tolkien the man, the artist, in this discussion. Perhaps I'm arguing against myself (A habbit of the stupid
), because if Tolkien was attempting to communicate some 'objective' truth, then his part, to the extent that he succeeded, is irrelevant, & his contribution only plays a part to the extent that he failed. Yet, even if he was attempting to communicate an objective 'truth' it was
his attempt, & we should respect that.
Its as much the Author, the Book or the Reader we're discussing, because the book is the author's attempt to communicate something to the reader. I'm happy enough to accept that there were different things the author wished to communicate at different times in his life, & that early stuff can & does contradict later, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it, because he continued to use the same stories, & its as likely that he was simply attempting to communicate his understanding of 'truth' from different angles, giving different aspects priority at different times. Perhaps, to pursue my earlier analogy, we have various sketches of the Tree, from different angles & with different numbers of branches, different shaped leaves, etc - some would argue from this that the artist was making up the tree, because if he was painting the tree differently each time then he couldn't have had a real physical model. Yet it could simply be that he never got the chance to study the tree properly - he only ever saw it from a distance, from the window of his train as he travelled into work each morning, & from his fleeting glimpses he tried to communicate not the tree itself, but his response to it.
And yet, does that matter, if all we have is the painting - I can see the argument, but I just feel that before we dismiss his intent, we must come to an understanding of what that intent was - to the extent that's possible, rather than just dismiss that unkown as unknowable.