I think it's telling that Kate and William agree that Miller had a "good/workable" definition of art, but neither tries to say what it was. Here's a potentially interesting drill: Each of the listers describes his/her notion of Miller's definition of 'mark' -- without trying to look up in the archive what Miller said. I'd expect there to be immense variation in their notions, and yet they'd all think they are talking "about" the "same" notion.
When Mando was brave enough to try this: " Is mark the essence of a style of each artist?" -- Kate cleared things up for him: "No, a mark is a mark." Earlier, I quoted Orwell using 'mark' in his comment on Dickens. "The outstanding, unmistakable mark of Dickens's writing is the unnecessary detail." The usage conforms somewhat to Mando's thinking -- i.e. it seems to dodge asserting that the "unnecessary detail" is something Orwell might or might not call the "essence" of Dickens's style, in favor of conveying that it's, let's call it, an "indicator", "evidence of the presence of". But I think Orwell had something more in mind than just "the conclusive clue that this writing is by Dickens". Orwell also had approval in mind -- not approval of all "unnecessary touches" in all writing, but the singular felicitous impact of their use by Dickens. I don't know what Miller's definition of 'mark' was, or the notion in the mind of any other lister except perhaps Mando. This leaves me ignorant -- but smart enough to discern the likelihood of unjustified assumptions by listers that they are "all talking about the the same thing. (i.e. all have a serviceably identical notion in mind when they use the word 'mark'.) ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
