What's the point of the entire thread? (Michael asks)
Kate had expressed an interest in discussing "marks and how they may or may not reflect whatever nebulous qualities you may find necessary to your definition of Bewty" --- so I began a thread with that title to encourage her to do so. But she quickly renamed the thread simply "Marks", dropping the reference to "bewty" (why did she use such a strange spelling?), and went on to ask "Don't physical marks used in painting or drawing change from century to century?", and "all the marks may result in something that could be termed art even though they differ widely?" After William responded, I suspected (as Cheerskep later would) that "listers were entertaining different notions each time they used the word", so I offered a definition of "mark" as "whatever is done to a surface in a single, un-interrupted touch", and all participants seem to have agreed to use it. (at least within this discussion of the marks made by visual artists) Eventually, Michael concluded that "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... 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." No one has rebutted him , so I suppose we have happily reached unanimous consent, and this thread is over. Or is it? Is Kate really content to leave the study of "marksism" to historians of personal style? Does she perhaps think of her favorite artists (as well as herself) as makers of marks rather than of makers of images? ____________________________________________________________ Earn your college degree online in your free time. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxP635ixhfOmvTn9qWjB9CG8r cWCC4gGAsrgw3M9ue3MjltsoS7RpG/
