Thanks for the link, Ken!
It's an interesting issue, indeed. My point was simply
that if we want to speak of "real" art (or better
said: of art at all), we need to take into account
that the piece is being created by the genius of an
author. Now, whether this implies that we are speaking
here of two personalities, or of two aspects of one
personality, or of something entirely different - is a
separate question. I'm not sure such a distinction
(between the author and the person who sat down to
write the book) is needed though. I would even say
that the poem is written by that very person, with all
his/her states of mind. BUT, what makes a poem a piece
of art is the fact that the genius of the author made
it independent of her/his personality, IN SO FAR that
it is possible to encrypt it without the recourse to
her/his biography; moreover, to call upon their
biography when interpreting the piece of art, would
mean to disrespect the artist's genius. 
It's interesting that the same situation we have in
the case of philosophical writings, and nobody
complains about that. I think we have the similar
aspect of geniality (pardon my English, maybe it's
"geniusity"?) here, as well as we do when we speak of
scientific discoveries.



--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> At 02:44 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote:
> >--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > >... the mind that creates (what to
> > > call it.....maybe "that
> > > impersonal capacity without which  poetry can
> not
> > > come to be worth [more
> > > than] the paper it is written on").
> >
> >Why not calling it simply genius?
>     In American English, at any rate, I'm not sure
> it would quite make 
> sense. And while mine above was not a totally
> serious attempt, maybe it's 
> worthwhile to get at a little more what it is. I
> think the disagreement on 
> this list lives in the undefined middle.
>   Interesting interview on NPR this morning that
> touches closely on this. 
> Might be worth a listen if your computer allows it:
>   It centers on novels and novelists. The
> interviewee, a Columbia 
> professor, notes that the author of the novel (and,
> as he says, "this is 
> the case with any artist") is different from the
> person who sat down to 
> write the book. In the context of the interview it
> could practically be a 
> direct restatement of the difference between "the
> man who suffers and the 
> mind which creates."
>   Ken A. 

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around