Agree,
I now use a stamp on my work in wax form , before it becomes
bronze ,and has no bearing the quality on my work.
Just for official identity purposes.
mando
On Jun 28, 2009, at 10:54 PM, William Conger wrote:
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)
