In a message dated 3/12/10 7:40:56 PM, [email protected] writes:
> Except the concern for the marks was guided by the representational > model. It was using marks to do represent something that was not marks, > not "approved" marks. I meant to say that the concern changed to the marks > themselves as the representation. From marks for art to marks as art. > Ok. But it looks as if the marks themselves were now the subject of representation-first the more familiar and numerous of the classical marks,and now (Ofilie) invented marks whose purpose is to represent a mark rather than to serve a greater whole. MAking up marks is harder than it looks(I know,I know, this is bordering on the fatuous) when you do know what the mark will be used for,when it is for nothing, a pure mark, it must surely be difficult to tell those marks which represent art well from those which do so badly? It might involve a skill. There are a lot of paintings out there in which the marks are boring, flaccid, tentative or careless or outright thoughtless and the maker doesn't seem to know the difference between his or her marks. They lack involvement with the marks,they are if anything more interested in the title. They didn't refuse the boring etc marks. Kate Sullivan
