[Raynor]

Once Tolkien introduces the story of Galadriel's desire to rule a land free of death & corruption & her use of Nenya to bring this about, suddenly we are dealing with "bulldozing the real world,", because she is not allowing natural processes to occur.

I wonder what is natural indeed (in Ea); as far as I can see it, a place in which the essence of Melkor is spread throughout creation, accelerating all decay, phisical and not only, is not natural. The fact that she tries to stay that decay isn't in any less blamable that the efforts of the valar to undo the evils of Melkor. Is the world bulldozed in Valinor? I think not - and that it occurs only where the influence of the Marrer can reach.

This may describe the Elves at their best (Vanyar & Teleri), but I can't see that it applies to either the exiled Noldor or the Sindar.

From the Sil, we pretty much know that the vanyar "received song and poetry" - artful indeed, but it is not the Art we are talking about; the Teleri are enamoured of the sea, with the height of their Art were the swan ships of Alqualonde.

The noldor? Oh, the noldor.. . They learned mostly from Aule, the smith of gods, and thus became "the most skilled of the Elves" (cf. The begining of days, Silmarillion). In Of Eldamar and the princes of Eldalie, we are also told that the "Noldor were beloved of Aule, and he and his people came often among them. Great became their knowledge and their skill; yet even greater was their thirst for more knowledge, and in many things they soon surpassed their teachers"; they even made Manwe's sceptre, and of their chief objects, the silmarils, it is said in Letter #131: "by the making of gems the sub-creative function of the Elves is chiefly symbolized". To conclude, I am pretty sure it was (primarily) the Noldor who Tolkien had in mind when talking about the elven Art.

So was Tolkien a conservative "luddite" (you remember this James Ludd, who went to destroy machines?), who just tried to say that machines are bad, or was his relation to technologies' more subtle?

Imo, letters #75 and #96, quoted above, pretty much points to the first option.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)?

Well, Estel, hope, would imply that of all His designs, the issue must be for his Children joy (cf Finrod's debate) - so I will go with the first option, again .