What's telling is Cheerskep's hubris and reliance on stereotypes -- a form of intellectual racism -- that denigrates "artists" as befuddled by musticism and unable to think rationally, like, apparently, himself.
Miller's proposed definition -- offered as a question was "Is a mark whatever is done to a surface in a single uninteruppted touch?" I then suggested the possibly redundant addition that a mark could include the recognition of them. What I had in mind was, for example, my noticing how a rock shows evidence of its being scratched by another rock as when we say something like "nature has left its mark..." But actually Miller's definition implies this already while it also implies marks being limited to human action alone. I merely wanted to clarify that minor ambiguity. Earlier, Kate proposed that marks can differ even in very suble ways such as the marks of paint made by an artist can differ from those of another even if intentional marks of paint may seem otherwise grouped by era, "school" (i.e., the School of Paris, the New York School). I agreed with her. Mando added (I paraphrase) that those intentional marks might be distinguishable because of the personality or spiritual makeup of the artist. Yes. Then enter Cheerskep, loudly and gleamingly, like a fanatical and stomping Crusader waving his flag, swinging his sword and yelling insults to the miserable, sulking, bleary-eyed natives of the eastern deserts. Ah, what drama! Meanwhile, Miller's succinct definition is before us. wc --- On Fri, 6/26/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: marks > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 7:35 AM > 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." > The usage conforms somewhat to Mando's thinking -- i.e. it > seems to dodge > asserting that the "unnecessary detail" is something Orwell > might or might not > call the "essence" of Dickens's style, in favor of > conveying that it's, > let's call it, an "indicator", "evidence of the presence > of". > > But I think Orwell had something more in mind than just > "the conclusive > clue that this writing is by Dickens". Orwell also had > approval in mind -- not > approval of all "unnecessary touches" in all writing, but > the singular > felicitous impact of their use by Dickens. > > I don't know what Miller's definition of 'mark' was, or the > notion in the > mind of any other lister except perhaps Mando. This leaves > me ignorant -- but > smart enough to discern the likelihood of unjustified > assumptions by > listers that they are "all talking about the the same > thing. (i.e. all have a > serviceably identical notion in mind when they use the word > 'mark'.) > > > > ************** > Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the > grill. > (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
