Eliot did not take this position (not that his word means more than that of any other serious thinker): he imitated all the time and dismissed mere originality--as he defined it of course--as not important.

What is at stake here is neither originality ror imitation but simply copying. That would seem to demand a different evaluation.

As for the different reaction, if you did not know, Terry, that one was forged, would your reaction be different? (I'm not validating forgery, by the way.)

>>> Peter Montgomery 04/06/10 5:33 AM >>> 
From: Terry Traynor 
To: [log in to unmask] 
If I am looking at two paintings that appear to be identical, and am told 
by specialists that one was done by Rembrandt's hand and the other by a 
master forger, I'm going to have a different reaction to the paintings 
despite their identical appearance. Why I react differently is a big mystery 
to me. 
Originality is rich. It connects one to the creative imagination 
which we all share. Imitation is merely clever. There is no original