[Aiwendil]

littlemanpoet:

Nevertheless, the artist as originator of the work will supply parameters of possible modes of interaction simply by virtue of what is put into a work of art.

Quite true.

To sum up, I think both the intention and the result play a part.

I think intention only plays a part so far as it affects the result. It is easy to intend to create a very serious work of literature; it is easy to strive for a seriousness level of 6 - what's difficult is achieving the desired result (I should know!)
But I do agree that authors who do not take their own work very seriously will probably not be able to produce any very serious work.

I did try to emphasize that I consider one level of seriousness in no way inferior to any other, except in precisely the seriousness of intent of the artist.

This is what I don't think I understand. If level 1 is in no way inferior to level 6, why divide them up into levels? Are we talking about levels, then, or just different types of seriousness?

Nor does self-expression instantly involve other people. I may write something that no-one else ever sees.

I suppose this is a matter of syntax and nomenclature. To me, it seems that any form of expression requires both a subject (the author) and an object (the audience).

Mister Underhill:

Aiwendil, we are starting to go in circles regarding the definition of Art. Thanks or indulging my inquiries with thoughtful replies, though. It’s been an interesting line of discussion.

Agreed.

Indeed, Tolkien frequently reports throughout letters that episodes and characters from LotR seemed to come to him without conscience invention, and that he had “very little particular, conscious, intellectual intention in mind at any point” while writing it.

This is true, but certainly Tolkien didn't write with the same ease as, say, Mozart. He certainly considered writing LotR to be a tremendous task. And he worked his entire life on the Silmarillion without producing a final version.