[Aiwendil]

However, I do not see an inherent contradiction between 'aesthetically beautiful' and 'aesthetically beautiful social commentary'.

No, these things are certainly not mutually exclusive. But given the choice between art that is aesthetically beautiful but lacks social commentary and art that makes a social point but lacks beauty, I'll take the former any day.

But, as Tolkien realized, the better a social commentary (or allegory) is, the more likely it will have aesthetic merit. And, at least for literature, the more aesthetically pleasing it is, the more likely it will be to have applicability.

Without this, you emasculate the artist, and allow for the 'ten thousand monkeys writing Shakespeare' scenario.

I think this is the core of our disagreement. I say that if one of those monkeys types Hamlet, it's just as good as Shakespeare's Hamlet. Oscar Wilde said that the purpose of art is to reveal art and conceal the artist. I agree with him.

If it helps to illustrate the point, I find Britney's happy little songs utterly lamentable

But that's because her music is of poor quality. It has nothing to do with her motives in producing it - all that matters is the end result.

But that exists alongside all the wonderful art that DOES have other purposes.

Agreed. But such works, if they are great, also have aesthetic beauty, whether independent of or due to their other purposes.

Can I inject a personal note and say that my late father was a painter, yet also a political radical, and in his life he struggled intensely with the 'role of art'.

I have no problem with art fulfilling a social role - as long as it is beautiful.

That which sells gets published.

Agreed. The real question, then, is: why do such horrid things sell?

2) AD&D with its encyclopedic mish mash of monsters, spells, hero classes and what not, which has the mass market appeal of making everything accessible for one's own picking and choosing and thus reducing ALL fantasy to the lowest common denominator for those who don't know better;

As a devoted gamer, I feel I must defend AD&D, though those who remember the 'Book of the century?' thread will no doubt roll their eyes. First of all, yes, there is something of an 'encyclopedic mish mash' of monsters and such. It is up to the DM to select from this mish mash what he or she wishes to use. A well constructed AD&D world gives no sense of there being a 'mish mash' at all. I don't see how this reduces fantasy to the lowest common denominator. Certainly there are a lot of bad DMs out there, but does not imply a flaw in the system any more than trashy novels imply a flaw in literature.

Also, I must point out that the relative merits and disadvantages of any particular gaming system do not have anything to do with the value of the medium of role-playing itself.

the modern extra-terrestrial fantasy which may be arguably considered sci-fi but has essentially replaced trolls, goblins, elves, gods and goddesses as that which 'fires the imagination' - thus we have fantasies like ET and Star Wars and and Star Trek and X Files and Spielberg's latest, "AI"

I've not seen AI, nor very much of the X files, so I can't speak for them. Star Wars is, as you suggest, basically fantasy in a science fiction setting. But it is good fantasy. ET is a fairly mainstream movie that is based around a simple science fiction premise. It is not really fantasy in any sense. And Star Trek is certainly not. Star Trek is pure science fiction, with high-concept plots and such. It is certainly not fantasy, and has really had no impact on the genre.

the failure of modern education

I think it's a bit melodramatic to declare modern education an outright failure, though it certainly has its flaws.

But I would widen your analysis to include Final Fantasy and other variations of computer and RPG games. These products are now part of the cultural landscape and extremely influential.

You can hardly blame things that are not designed to be art for the decline of an artistic genre. Final Fantasy is a good game, and that's all. It's not art. If it's had a negative effect on art, that is the fault of artists who have taken it as an influence, not of the game itself.

I'll bite my tongue and not reopen the role-playing argument.