For those who played the game, here's the answers (from bottom to top):
Wucius Wong , 2005 #2035 Brice Marden 1996 #2034 Mary Heilmann, Heaven 2004 #2033 Cy Twombly #2032 Lisa Yuskavage, Angel, 2004 #2031 Lucien Freud, 1997 #2030 Arshile Gorky 1946 #2029 Matta 1942 #2028 Fritz Glarner 1957 #2027 Andre Masson 1926 #2026 Paul Delvaux, 1939 #2025 Max Ernst #2024 Rene magritte 1938 #2023 Yves Tanguy 1928 #2022 tiepolo 1742 #2021 Thomas lawrence 1815 #2020 John Singer Sargent 1917 #2019 William Merritt Chase 1910 #2018 Vuillard 1906 #2017 El Greco 1577 #2016 Elizaeth Sparhawk-Jones 1911 #2015 William Harnett 1888 #2014 Berthe morisot 1875 #2013 Monet 1906 #2012 Monet 1894 #2011 Gerard David 1500 #2010 Childe Hassam 1890 #2009 Jacques louis david 1769 #2008 Cezanne 1888 #2007 Contemporary Imitation marble painted column #2006 George Inness 1870 #2005 John Wollaston 1749 #2004 Twachtman 1889 #2003 Cy twombly, painted surface of statue, # 2002 Project board in my studio #2001 Yes, perhaps all this exercise proves is familiarity with paintings from the Art Institute of Chicago. Some of the artists seemed more generally identifiable (like #2012 as Monet and #2030 as Lucien Freud), but I thought many of them could have possibly originated anytime within the last 400 years. (though for those who prefer the passive voice, anything is possible, including someone, somewhere with sufficient expertise to recognize all the artists without ever having been to Michigan Avenue) But whatever identifcations are possible -- they still would have to be based on much more than single marks that have been removed from their surroundings. Whether these small areas of detail (up to 4 square inches) could be presented as works of art -- I don't think that has ever happened, has it? (at least, I've never seen it - unless the fragment includes a recognizable figure, like a face ) So, finally, I'm left with the question of why are marks (defined as "whatever is done to a surface in a single, un-interrupted touch") so important to Kate? Francis has proposed that marks are "iconic subsigns called qualisign tones, such as for example lingual phones in the form of spoken oral sounds and written literal strokes" -- but unlike tones and calligraphy strokes, most marks cannot be distinguished from their backgrounds -- and in some paintings, none of them can) Without their surrounding visual context, marks are as unimportant as the disconnected fragments of text that Michael has cut from a page. And as Michael concluded: "Will anyone ask someone else about these marks? No? I didn't think so." 7:54 batch 1 8:09 b 2 8:35 b3 8:21 b 3 ____________________________________________________________ Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems. Click here for more info. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcAB1qVXSGAs8ARXzYa1jSLI irCmmeowae5NSnjQhLu1cMu9nBSBy/
