It is hard to agree with William's objections to Chris's remarks. It's hard because 1) William brings new terms into the discussion without making clear what he has in mind with these terms; 2) he effectively attributes terms/notions to Chris that Chris in fact did not employ; and 3) though he seems to be criticizing something I said earlier in a "Marks" posting, he ignores my argument for replacing the word 'mark' (and the ostensible notions behind it) with my notion-and-word, 'characteristic'.
Among the new terms William introduces are 'the aesthetics of looking at art' (and 'aesthetically worthless'), and 'form': "A mark isolated from form is aesthetically worthless." I infer that William counts as a mark each stroke of his brush. But it's clear that that's not Chris's notion; on his site Chris labels as "marks" photos of patches of painting entailing many strokes. I don't have much of a grasp on what William has in mind with "form", but I think it's not unlikely he could mean something as off-target as "the entire, completed work". I myself would never use the word that way. I maintain that a small patch can indeed be characteristic of a painter/composer/writer. (I'm not unaware that Chris seems inconsistent himself: He defined a mark as the visible result of a single continuous touch (or stroke), but then displays on his site many alleged "marks" every one of which is obviously the result of multiple touches.) I'd therefore be comfortable saying there are moments of Brahms's music no more than one second in duration in which I detect a multiplex of sounds that have their own uniquely characteristic Brahmsian "form". Thus, since I explained why I would substitute 'characteristic' for 'mark', I'd "translate" William's line, "A mark isolated from form is aesthetically worthless," into, "A characteristic isolated from characteristic is aesthetically worthless." Or, "A form isolated from form is aesthetically worthless." Both of which feel vacuous no matter what the notion of "aesthetically worthless". (Meantime, I enjoy the appellation used on Al Hirschfeld: "The Line King". He could indeed with one continuous line convey a "form" that was uniquely characteristic of him.) The term that William effectively attributes to Chris but which Chris in fact never did employ is that minefield of confusion, 'signifies': "Now, which one of those 50,000 dips of the paddle or which one of those 25,000 painted marks is the one that signifies the individual voyageuer or my art? wc" William gives that line the power-position in his latest condemnation of Chris: It's the final sentence -- suggesting that in William's mind this is the ultimate knockout punch. But, one, it has nothing to do with Chris, so it misses him by a wide margin. And, two, by employing the deeply muddled term/notion 'signifies', William, boomerang-like, socks himself in the jaw. ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
