Seems to me that "mark" in any creative endeavor is the result of the
habitual learned methods of creating things. The identity of how each
artist habitualy relates form,sound, color and words etc. It's
uniqueness.
mando
On Jun 30, 2009, at 2:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
In a message dated 6/29/09 7:19:15 AM, [email protected]
writes:
Actually, this is not
a recognition test of "marks" if we define them as "whatever is
done to a surface in a single, un-interrupted touch" because,
more than just individual marks, I've presented entire areas of
detail.
These "entire areas" are much more interesting to me. When I was in
college, my roommate had stacks of classical records that he was
familiar with. I
could start a record and put the needle down somewhere in the
middle, and in
less than a second he'd know the piece. I got to the point where, in a
similarly short time, I could at least identify the composer. E.g.
Brahm's blend
of instruments was unmistakably "characteristic".
Such characteristic style -- sometimes as little as a line, perhaps
even a
phrase -- is sufficient to identify those writers who have a unique
"voice".
I don't agree that looking for such characteristics in a painter,
composer,
or writer is merely play -- of no educational/appreciating value.
**************
It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place
where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
