Every work of art partakes of multiple recursive an generative discourses - what the aesthetic object/ material artifact is, is different than what it might be about and this differs from the texts that are genrated in the process of trying to comprehend both the is and the about and the relationship between the two
On 6/29/09 1:54 AM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: I don't think the artists would need to be unworthy since there are social and cultural reasons why an artist is worthy that may over-ride the marks. The marks themselves don't have much if anything to do with art quality. I do think one can id the marks of a given school of art, like impressionism or AE or the 21C favoring of thinner and more graphic marks. I don't think we can really compare word marks with paint marks anyway.. wc ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:27:32 PM Subject: Re: Marks In a message dated 6/29/09 12:11:11 AM, [email protected] writes: > I actually did recognize a few of Miller's mark details but that's > because I'm > familiar with the same museum he went to. Monet, Harnett, Cezanne, a lot > of > 20 mid century, a few 21C, and 19C, plus 17C marks. > But isn't it true that you could recognize scores of unworthy "artists" who were obviously of their century because they adopted various characteristics of their age? I have believed that if you could show me a play (with the playwright's name blacked out) I could place it within a twenty-year "period". ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008) --
