Frances to Michael... My thought admittedly was on lingual "markedness" and whether the grammatical stuff of this "marking" theory might be applied as "marks" to nonlingual signs like paintings, but in a way broader than say mere blots and strokes. This application of course may not be possible.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Brady [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Marks On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Frances Kelly wrote: Now, where did I put that razor Bill Occam sent me?... It's around here somewhere... > It seems to me that narrow formal qualities like noise sounds and > body gests and brush strokes and partial extracts are likely not > "marks" in the broader philosophic use of the term, although when > such qualities like sounds and gests and strokes and extracts do > indeed reveal the style and voice and school of a particular > producer, then they might be called "marks" in the wider sense of > identifying some sort of comparison, as with a member to its class. > It might therefore be best to define a "mark" in a more lofty way as > that aspect of form which identifies the differences between an > apposition and its opposition. For example, a "mark" could help > identify the difference between an ambiguous figure and an opposed > ground in a frame, ... Why is it better to define a "mark" "in a more lofty way"? That's just upping the ante without good cause. But then you add "as that aspect of form which identifies the differences between an apposition and it opposition. For example, ... between an ambiguous figure and an opposed ground." What about the paint touches made within that ambiguous figure? Aren't they marks? Or are they something else? You seem to be making a case for designating some paint touches as the visual analogs of phonemes, that is, some marks differentiate visual areas more or less as phonemes differentiate sounds that convey lexical significance. The same can be said for all the touches within the figure, which serve to identify that area of the painting as a figure and not anything else. In fact, the figure can be said to define the other side of the mark, so that the viewers see it without ambiguity. > ... or between the unmarked human as male or female and the marked > woman only as female. Oh, you're talking about adding marks that are sui genetalis, right? (or is that mui genitalis?) > If forms like sounds and gests and strokes and extracts fail to > sufficiently identify differences in opposition, then they would not > be "marks" at least in the broader sense. What's the point of adding another nuance of "meaning" to a term that currently gives us pretty unambiguously serviceable notions. Adding a new and improved "broader sense" would impair that serviceability without adding anything that we don't already have available to use as a logical, lexical, or rhetorical tool | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected] http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
