My chief objection to the 'Marks' thread is that I was sure I was observing listers entertaining different notions each time they used the word. I think the postings since my original remark support my observation.
I proposed a working definition of 'mark': "any visually observable change in the surface appearance of any physical object whatever -- painting, sculpture, building, tree, wall, pond, mountain." William responded: "That was Miller's definition." But earlier William conveyed that Miller's definition was this: "A mark is whatever is done to a surface in a single uninteruppted touchb&. Miller's definition implies marks being limited to human action alone." But my working definition allowed for non-human action. So my definition was NOT Miller's definition. William had proposed an alteration to Miller's definition to accommodate non-human "changes in the surface appearance of any physical object whatever". It is this: "A mark could include the recognition of themb& for example, my noticing how a rock shows evidence of its being scratched by another rock." I doubt many listers would say, "Yes, right from the outset I, along with William, counted as a 'mark' not just the physical change, but the conscious awareness of the change." (Remember: my gripe was that listers were chipping in, using the same words but without stopping to consider how often they each had different notions behind those words.) Boris asserted: " We are talking marks in connection to visual arts." But William talked about the marks of a poet and even of hunters and animals in the forest. Michael was also not entertaining the same notion as William: "A mark is a distinctive visual artifact." I think most listers would accept a completed painting or sculpture as "a distinctive visual artifact". But then, how would that square with Miller's primary requirement: "A mark is whatever is done to a surface in a single uninteruppted touchb&." A whole painting in a single uninterrupted touch? Michael goes on: " Style - from stylus, a writing instrument, a thing that makes a mark. Mark - a touching of a surface, a line made as an indication or record of something" There's a connotation of "on purpose" there. Which does not square with William's acceptance that a rock scraping a rock can leave a mark. Boris would also disagree with William: "Mark is a result of using mark-making tool." Then in a curious way, Michael arrives back at a position close to part of what William was saying: "A mark is more than a mark--it is, if you will, a hologram of the artist, a way of seeing the entire picture in a single element" Realize that almost all these would-be clarifications were posted after my gripe. There had been many, many postings on the 'Marks' thread before that, and, say I, much of the time the lister was using the term in mistaken assumption that when others read the word there would arise in the readers' minds notion serviceably like the one in his, the lister's, mind. The second half of my gripe was this: the thread is fruitless. Its would-be fruit is a compendium of the untenable and the obvious. E.g. what Michael says about forgers is not inapt, but there is nothing new to it. Recall the line from my early volley: "Using that definition, what NEWLY illuminating notions do you think follow from contemplating that definition of 'mark'?" ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
