Thanks, Diana, for greatly clarifying things. 

I see those things differently than you do, but now I understand what 
you are saying, and am glad for that.


Diana Manister wrote:

> Peter and Marcia,
> We'll never know exactly how Eliot pictured his audience, but my 
> admittedly exaggerated assertion that he could anticipate their every 
> association to his verbal figures was based on the likelihood that he 
> was addressing a cultured and/or educated gentry, in short, an elite 
> who shared similar experiences, privileges and prejudices in England 
> at that time. Certainly when the work is read in a later historical 
> period and in a different country with a less rigid class system, 
> those associations will broaden beyond what Eliot could anticipate. 
> Abstract art probably does not suffer the same contingency -- a Rothko 
> painting will likely communicate the same contemplative feeling-tone 
> in more circumstances than an artwork fashionned from words, whose 
> meanings change more swiftly than the significations of colors do. 
> (Pop art I think will change meaning in different contexts -- a Jaspar 
> Johns American flag or a silk-screen of Marilyn Monroe say.)
> <>