--On Friday, April 08, 2005 11:46 PM -0700 Peter Montgomery
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Which ever angle one takes on the poem, is one justified in saying
> Eliot as artist is perverse for writing it? And how can one distinguish
> the artist from the man? Is perversity not a fit subject for any
> artist, however undeveloped in his skills, perceptions and insights?
> If Eliot was being conscously (or even unconsciously) perverse
> in creating the lines, rather than exploring the material as a subject for
> art, is that not a reflection on him as a person, rather than on him
> as an artist.
> That is what I take the debate to be. Perhaps I have it wrong.
Thanks for this. Your previous post to me in this thread had me stymied,
but this formulation seems to me the crux, and worth establishing.
Exploring (or as McLuhan might have put it, manipulating) material into art
is not the same as, in effect, submitting to or being manipulated by the
material to reflect it.