" > > This couldn't be Miller's definition, but let's use it for > a moment: "In > this discussion when I say 'mark', the notion I'd like to > arise in your mind > is that of any visually observable change in the surface > appearance of any > physical object whatever -- painting, sculpture, building, > tree, wall, pond, > mountain."
That was Miller's definition. > > Using that definition, what newly illuminating notions do > you think follow > from contemplating that definition of 'mark'? That depends on the user of the mark. A thick-headed critic says, "What can be illuminating about an apple"? A Cezanne replies, "I will astound all of Paris with one apple" Or, as a wise critic once said, "It's not what you do it with but what you do with it". In the case of the poet, use would be to regard the mark metaphorically, as a concrete stand in for something else, perhaps an idea or feeling, to convey the meaning he or she had in mind. In the case of a hunter, the tracks -- marks -- left by the deer are used as an indication (also a metaphor) of its presence and possible whereabouts. This seems pretty consistent with Cheerskep's philosophy, as he has defined it for years. > > > ************** > Make your summer > sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. > (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
