[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

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.

This has always been more or less my view, though obviously one not very popular in literary circles. It has always seemed strange to me that the value of a work of art should critically depend on something as unknowable as the author's innermost thoughts. If it were discovered that Beethoven's fifth symphony had in fact been written at random by a team of millions of monkeys, that would do nothing to dislodge it from its place as my favorite piece of music. If it turned out that "Beowulf" had in fact been written in the early 20th century, a fact covered up by some massive conspiracy, I would not suddenly call it pastiche and condemn it to oblivion; I would still read and enjoy it.

Of course, such things are remarkably improbable. Works of art do not form at random, and it would be extremely difficult for an artist of one time to produce a work that so perfectly fit a much different time. That is where the importance of the artist lies, I think. The artist is like the inventor or the scientist in this regard: his or her importance lies not in the fact of being an artist, but rather in the art produced. We do not think that to appreciate the theory of relativity we must appreciate the details of Einstein's inner thoughts; rather, we appreciate Einstein because he produced the theory of relativity. The theory is what really matters, and so it is, I think, with the art.

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.

Indeed; I hope I haven't given the impression that I think it is worthless to inquire into the author's intent. I think it is worthwhile, but for a different reason. The fact is that the artist physically produced the art - that is, the texts have their present form as a direct result of certain processes going on in Tolkien's brain. It's not surprising, then, that by studying Tolkien and Tolkien's mind, we can learn things about the text. A first-time reader of LotR may not be aware of any Catholic overtones in the work. Reading Tolkien's letters, he or she discovers Tolkien's Catholicism and its role in his writing, and comes to appreciate that aspect of the work. It's not that LotR has Catholic elements simply because Tolkien said so; those elements are inherent in the text. But studying Tolkien the man may help to illuminate such inherent elements.

Now I think I'll fall silent lest Bethberry comes around again.