In a message dated 6/24/09 6:18:35 PM, [email protected] writes:
> I certainly agree that some groups of mark-making are prized as salient > to art in some eras or cultures, but are not in others. In western art > history, the older notion of changing styles depended on a radical change in > mark-making to divide one era from another, with the earlier being out of > fashion while the later matures. The late 1950s shift from expressionist > abstraction to "post-painterly" abstraction might be an obvious example. > That's what I mean. The only thing the marks might have in common is that the result they produce is sometimes accepted as art. The marks are the noumenal part of the phenomena. So why one set of marks and not another? Kate Sullivan ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
