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 <[log in to unmask]> 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