Re: Kate's excellent queries; Barthes; etc

[Cheerskep]

In a message dated 12/9/12 3:04:58 PM, lslb...@aol.com writes:

Since a mark with no conscious meaning  was what Pollock was
> aiming at he would indeed be justified in chiding the viewers on their
> insistence that he intended a penis.
>
I did not cite anyone insisting anything about Pollock's intention:
>
> "Let's say Pollack's flung paint hits the canvas in such a way that four
> out
> of five observers, upon seeing the shape, cannot help being reminded of
> a
> penis."  Kate seems to be saying that Pollack would be justified in
> growling
> that they "miss the mark".