I much prefer the first to the second, but beyond that relative preference, I wouldn't say that I like the first quote very much either. If we'll never know that then it seems dubious to even bother conjecturing it in the first place, and it seems to use "cowardice" in a newspeak manner that's unfortunately popular now (where we say that people who risk certain death through committing acts of terror, for example, are "cowards," as opposed to, say, people who sit at home doing the same safe, routine things every say rather than taking some chances and risking and regularly dealing with rejection etc. in order to pursue the things they want out of life . . . Not that I'm endorsing acts of terror or suggesting the same as an alternative to sitting at home etc.; those are just two examples of how I think the word is being abused so that it threatens any clear definition beyond "people really dislike being called this term, so I'm going to lob it at you when I really dislike what you're doing or really dislike your views/your ideology").

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive." Political correctness gone awry.


"Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics."

Everything is aesthetically artifactual; in practice the surface (the mystery, the spell of the work) of the work belies the power play (the politic) beneath its appearance. Engaged art versus engaging art, not art for art's sake, but art for society's sake.

I very much like art for art's sake. I tend to be a bit of a formalist, although with fiction (including films) and the visual arts, I tend to still prefer things that are at least somewhat representational, but I'm not a fan of realism in either.

Monet's Water Lilies
Picasso's Guernica

Both are necessary for art, I think.

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive."

This highlights the well known psychological pressure of group conformity. "Cowardice" and what is "progressive" is partially defined by the group you're embedded in or trying to appeal to.

If you can't chug way too much beer through your anus, you're probably a "pussy" in some frat circle. What that might have to do with being progressive is up for debate. Status can "progress" in a group hierarchy.

"Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics."

The Red Elephants see great opportunity in blood sport (red is toward others, flushed alertness: fear).

The Blue Donkeys are burdened with a slave cart (blue is toward the self, blood has left the face: fear).

Every Donkephant is a Elekey, enrobed in a purple mantle of toward others toward the self.

Or... Go Cubs!

The flame of boredome and suffering renders it all into what might well be mystery.

Edit: It's backwards. Everything begins in politics and ends in mysticism.