Then there is the mark of Cain On 6/26/09 5:31 PM, "armando baeza" <[email protected]> wrote:
It's uniqueness is also a mark.!!!!My friend is a Mark! (mando is a mark) On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:24 PM, armando baeza wrote: > In clay sculpture a mark often times are finger prints. > So what is really the problem here?How about signature? > mando > > On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> Michael writes the material between the brackets: >> >> [On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Miller's definition was this: >>> >>> "A mark is whatever is done to a surface in a single uninteruppted >> touch." Miller's definition implies marks being limited to human >> action >> alone. >> >> Where? I'm afraid I don't see it.] >> >> I bracket it, because my small worry is that succinct but sloppy >> lingo by >> me may have led Michael to think he's responding to me when he >> says, "But >> your assertion above is one of them inference things, not an >> implication. >> *You* >> interpreted "single uninterrupted touch" to convey exclusively human >> touching, not bird-poo. . ." >> >> What cheers...@aol>COM actually wrote was: >> >> [But earlier William conveyed that Miller's definition was this: >> >> "A mark is whatever is done to a surface in a single uninteruppted >> touchb&. >> Miller's definition >> implies marks being limited to human action >> alone."] >> >> In fact, however, I largely agree with William's "interpretation" >> of what >> Chris had in mind. William might have been clearer if he'd said, >> "Miller's >> definition suggests. . ." >> >> In any case, I presume Chris Miller lives on, though he may be >> taking a >> long weekend. When he gets back perhaps he'll answer our feather- >> weight >> question: Did you, Chris, have in mind solely human doings when >> you wrote, "A >> mark >> is whatever is done to a surface in a single uninteruppted touch"? >> >> Michael goes on to say: >> >> "As for my reply to Kate, I was addressing only the nature of >> human-made >> marks. What I said did not preclude non-human-made marks. . . >> >> I'd say you did a bad job of conveying that. You wrote: >> >> [A mark is a distinctive visual artifact. >> >> Style - from stylus, a writing instrument, a thing that makes a mark. >> Mark - a touching of a surface, a line made as an indication or >> record of >> something >> >> The marks left on the surface--of a painting or of a sculpture, >> even-- >> embody and preserve the action of the maker's hand, that is, his >> *sytle*. No >> two >> people make identical marks, or make marks with identical physical >> characteristics. Forgeries or handwriting or.. . . ] >> >> I hope you can see why these remarks about "the maker's hand" are >> likely to >> send readers away with the idea that the notion of 'marks' you had >> in mind >> was restricted to human product. >> >> >> >> >> >> ************** >> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the >> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006) --
