‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

If it were discovered that Beethoven's fifth symphony had in fact been written at random by a team of millions of monkeys, that would do nothing to dislodge it from its place as my favorite piece of music.

No, but you'd know that the monkeys weren't trying to write a beautiful piece of music, that they weren't trying to communicate anything to you, or inspire any emotional response, so any response you did have to the music would have its source solely in you. That's not the case if Beethoven wrote it - that fact adds another 'dimension' to the work - it was written with intent - specific intent, to produce a specific response in its hearers. Beethoven wrote it for a reason, it exists for that reason, & if he hadn't had that reason to write it, it wouldn't exist, & you wouldn't ever have experienced your favourite piece of music. From this point of view, the artist/composer/scientist is as important as what they produce, even if their intention/motivation is ultimately unknowable. The work is in a sense a 'manifestation' of the worker, the effect the worker has on the world, the 'imprint' he makes on the physical or mental universe around him. There must be some personal aspect to the work, & some 'transcendent' aspect, if the work is true art (imo).

(edit cross-posted with BB) I will only add that I think Tolkien did attempt to take into account the authors of the ancient texts he studied - particularly Beowulf - & a good part of the Beowulf essay is spent attributting motives, desires & beliefs to that unknown poet (he even gave him a name, if I remember rightly!)- so he clearly felt that it was of such importance to take into account the artist in an attempt to understand a work of art that if he didn't know about him, he would make up a character for him - so for Tolkien, it seems, an artist could be discovered, dug out from his work, in fact it almost seems that he felt it necessary for an understanding of the work to have the possibility of a 'dialogue' with that author - even if Tolkien had to create the author in order to have the dialogue.

[Aiwendil]

The work is in a sense a 'manifestation' of the worker, the effect the worker has on the world, the 'imprint' he makes on the physical or mental universe around him. There must be some personal aspect to the work, & some 'transcendent' aspect, if the work is true art (imo).

Well that's the crux of our disagreement. I'm afraid I hold fast to the view that the art is valuable in itself, without reference to its creator, though again I don't think that this makes studying the author unimportant. I recall some old threads where I argued this; I'll dig them out and link to them if I get a chance.

Anyway, I wonder whether there's any value in further discussion of the issue, with such a fundamental disagreement.

And I still wonder to what extent this is all anything more than a disagreement about definitions.

Edit: Here are those links; each of them touches on issues we've also touched on here, though they cover a lot of other ground as well:

Book of the Century

Are There Any Valid Criticisms?

Dumbing Down the Books

[davem]

'Is 'Art' transcendent, or does it have a transcendent dimension, or put us in touch with one.

Perhaps the argument is between the Platonists & the Aristotelians, in which case it probably never will be solved.

Replace 'transcendent' with 'impersonal', objective. Did Middle earth come to us from Tolkien, or through Tolkien. It seems to me that your position is almost Platonic in its own way, taking the art, Middle earth, as a 'given' a thing which exists in & of itself, not arising from Tolkien, because if it did arise from the mind of Tolkien alone, then how can you not see Tolkien's beliefs & values as central to an understanding of it?. It seems that on this question I'm arguing for it being the product of a man's mind, so the owner of that mind must be taken into account if we are to understand what it produced, while you are almost arguing that is should be seen as an objectively existing thing, which is just a 'given'. I become the 'subjectivist' & you the 'objectivist'.