I don't think the artists would need to be unworthy since there are social and cultural reasons why an artist is worthy that may over-ride the marks. The marks themselves don't have much if anything to do with art quality. I do think one can id the marks of a given school of art, like impressionism or AE or the 21C favoring of thinner and more graphic marks. I don't think we can really compare word marks with paint marks anyway..
wc ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:27:32 PM Subject: Re: Marks In a message dated 6/29/09 12:11:11 AM, [email protected] writes: > I actually did recognize a few of Miller's mark details but that's > because I'm > familiar with the same museum he went to. Monet, Harnett, Cezanne, a lot > of > 20 mid century, a few 21C, and 19C, plus 17C marks. > But isn't it true that you could recognize scores of unworthy "artists" who were obviously of their century because they adopted various characteristics of their age? I have believed that if you could show me a play (with the playwright's name blacked out) I could place it within a twenty-year "period". ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
