In a message dated 6/26/09 8:35:51 AM, [email protected] writes:
> I think it's telling that Kate and William agree that Miller had a > "good/workable" definition of art, but neither tries to say what it was. > Here's a > potentially interesting drill: Each of the listers describes his/her > notion of > Miller's definition of 'mark' -- without trying to look up in the archive > what Miller said. I'd expect there to be immense variation in their > notions, > and yet they'd all think they are talking "about" the "same" notion. > > When Mando was brave enough to try this: > > " Is mark the essence of a style of each artist?" > > -- Kate cleared things up for him: > > "No, a mark is a mark." > > Earlier, I quoted Orwell using 'mark' in his comment on Dickens. "The > outstanding, unmistakable mark of Dickens's writing is the unnecessary > detail." > There is no mark on Dicken's writing. This is a metaphorical use of a word whose meaning is physical. Miller's definition included words like "leaving a trace on a surface". This is a simple dicussion about a thing. One might ask-does an artist,seeing a mark in someone else's work, think-I could do that,I like that,how would I use it? KAte Sullivan ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
