On Jun 29, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
(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)
That's not written in the passive voice. Try again.
What is the point of this entire thread? Miller made a comment about
*writers* discussing marks, to which Kate replied that marks had
changed over time and that the writers' comments "have little to do
with why or how marks change."
In the overwhelmingly large, lion's share of instances, the artist's
marks give evidence of how he or she applied the paint, and very
little else. Much of those differences are driven by the physical
materials available and used in the work: how supple the brush hairs
are, how pliable or stiff the pigment or colorant is, the medium
itself (e.g., fresco, tempera, oil, watercolor, pastel, etc.); or
technique of application: glazing, scumbling, drypoint, soft ground,
tusche, lithography, etc. And then there's the popularity of various
pictorial techniques, from the chiaroscuro of Rembrandt's built-up
picture to Hals's clearly defined bravura brushwork, Leonardo's
sfumato to Hockney's flat colors.
Pursuing the sources of marksism is more a task for a historian of
personal style than the thin edge of the wedge into a discussion of
grander themes.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
