I don't think the marks alone would justify the honor of art but of course I'm not sure what if anything would qualify. That's the unending problem of the subjective-objective origin of art, as we know. Which is it? Both, I suppose but who can say? We can't remove our own subjectivity as we can with a fully materialist or scientific measure of nature. No apparatus can decide what art is..or can it?
I certainly agree that some groups of mark-making are prized as salient to art in some eras or cultures, but are not in others. In western art history, the older notion of changing styles depended on a radical change in mark-making to divide one era from another, with the earlier being out of fashion while the later matures. The late 1950s shift from expressionist abstraction to "post-painterly" abstraction might be an obvious example. wc --- On Wed, 6/24/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: marks > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:54 PM > In a message dated 6/24/09 5:46:55 > PM, [email protected] > writes: > > > > I think it's broadly true that a family resemblance > does unite the > > mark-making > > of artists in specific generations, national groups, > etc. > > > > And all the marks may result in something that could be > termed art even > though they differ widely? > Kate Sullivan > > > ************** > Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy > recipes for the grill. > (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
