 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Note: This discussion is also in the listserv archive as individual postings. Individual posting have not been edited, only compiled into one file. Non related postings were removed from this.
From: Peter Verheyen verheyen@philobiblon.com
Subject: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
We've had this debate before, but I'd like to pose this question again. Why, do I want to do this to myself again, well I'm giving a presentation to an Art History class on "artists books" and people have been clamoring for a definition.
What I'd like is for people to think about this subject and submit a concise (1 paragraph) definition. I'll select a few of these and put them into a handout. If there's enough interest I may put them together as a web file and post on the Book Arts Web.
Thanks for your help.
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Verheyen, Listowner: Book_Arts-L 315.443.9937 <wk> 315.443.9510
<fax> mailto:verheyen@philobiblon.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
From: Darryl Baird darrylb@AIRMAIL.NET
Organization: http://web2.airmail.net/darrylb
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
My definition.
An artists book is a harmonious composite of design, form, content, and context with no one area dominating or responsible for the bulk of intended message(s). The overlapping of form (materials) and content (message) is quite often the major vehicle for creative expression.
--Darryl Baird
From: Leda Black LMB@MATH.AMS.ORG
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
I think you have to distinguish between a good artist's book and just an artist's book. Quality is a different matter than simple definition. The definition of an artist's book is: a book made by an artist. Now you can distinguish between different kinds of artist's books, like: Finely printed, xeroxed, with writing, without writing, etc. All that "harmonious union of text and image etc." stuff is evaluation. --L. Black, imp.
From: R Starr rstarr@UMBC2.UMBC.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To regress (digress): what is an artist? Some time ago I think the list dealt with the equally complex issue of what a book is. Is a book something to be read. and, if so, how do we define "read"? Yhus, the regress (digress) could be infinite.
R*
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Leda Black wrote:
> ...definition of an artist's book is: a book made by an artist.
From: Ray Bliss Rich r_rich@conknet.com
Organization: Meditations on Paper
Subject: Re: Definition--Artists Book
There's got to be cultures that are not so hung up on definitions... Were I to feel the need to define, I'd qualify my statement, saying that "There is no absolute definition, but to me an artist's book is..."
Or... if I had gotten some general consensus from a group of those who are intimately involved with the thing, I'd say "The general consensus of those intimately involved with... is..."
Guess that's what the original poster is looking for here... some sort of consensus... or common elements... from the group...
-- Ray Bliss Rich, artist -------------------------- http://www.conknet.com/~r_rich
From: Janice Esther Westley Braun jbraun@MILLS.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
I have given this a great deal of consideration and I think that any definition is problematic. I am only able to answer the question with more difficult questions:
What is a book? What is art (and/or what is an artist)?
Perhaps for teaching purposes, it is best to show various examples that fulfill the many definitions that you will no doubt receive from this query.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Janice Braun Special Collections Curator F.W. Olin Library, Mills College jbraun@mills.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Richard Miller rmiller@PETERBORO.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Peter:
Are you a masochist? How's this:
"Artists book" is a [controversial term given to] book or book-like object in which the primary interest, or emphasis, is visual rather than textual.
You could go on to say that the controversy arises out of the fact that some feel strongly that a book, to be considered a book, must behave in all respects like a book. Otherwise it's not a book but something else, such as sculpture. There is also some confusion having to do with the fact that artists (ie: usually visual artists who have made their reputation in fields not associated with the book) have, in the past, decorated books, or even created books which have been called artists books while remaining fairly traditional in concept. We also have "book artists" who sometimes create visually beautiful, or conceptually rich works which still are recognizable without question as books. The problem (for the purists), however, is when a work is created which ignores -- or defies -- one or more aspects of the traditional book, such as the pages being glued, nailed, or otherwise fastened together so that the book will not open, or conversely -- as in the forthcoming Art of the Book '98 exhibition organized by CBBAG -- where a work consists of a series of "pages" strung on a line with closepins rather than being "bound" in the traditional sense.
I have no doubt that, in time, the controversy will abate when people realize that objects (or sculpture) which have been inspired by, or heavily influenced by "the fetish-object known as book" (to quote Stan Bevington), can be considered "artists books" even though they don't conform in all respects to some ten-point checklist of what makes a traditional book.
Humbly submitted (ie: my two cents worth), Richard.
---------------------------------------- Richard Miller <rmiller@peterboro.net>
The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild website: http://kawartha.net/~rmiller/cbbag/CBBAGhome.html
From: leil lucy alexander leilx@OLYMPUS.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
I tell people when they ask me what an artist's book is that I've never met two artists who agree on a definition, but for me, as an artist, it means a book or book-like object in which content is not limited to words alone--it is expressed in every aspect of the book or object from the words and images to the structure and type and printing method. ideally, that is. sometimes it isn't quite so.
I think this is a fascinating question, although I get tired of it. it gets very frustrating in an academic setting, especially if you are having lots of artists come through and talk about their work. in England (at the MA in Book Arts program), there were times when I wanted to scream and throw things at them!
leil (or Camellia El-Antably)
From: charles alexander chax@THERIVER.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
At 07:25 PM 3/4/98 -0400, you wrote: >Peter: > >Are you a masochist? How's this: > >"Artists book" is a [controversial term given to] book or book-like object >in which the primary interest, or emphasis, is visual rather than textual.
No, this won't work either. There are plenty of 'artists' books' where it is precisely the textual which is of primary interest. Typographical artists' books, and, anyway, is typography textual or visual -- isn't it both?
charles
From: Jennifer Vignone opus@TIAC.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Though I hate the notion of a definition, since by defining what an artist's book is, may lead to excluding SOMETHING which, upon reading the definition, would work to eliminate SOMEONE who would have perhaps made an artist's book (or books) which would have been an enriching and tremendous addition to the realm of art itself, not just artist's books...that said, what drew me to making books and leaving traditional painting (to reincorporate painting and everything else) behind was the magic of the book...the exploration of the structure, the surprise a book has to offer--in its traditional sense--and in its redefined (by an artist, or not just artists) manifestation. Artist's books are little worlds--secrets almost--even when they are huge in structure--they are intimate and bold--and possess the ability to incorporate so many different forms of media in a uniquely revisited way.
Having said that, I realize how hard it is to define, and I would rather just say I make them, whatever they are, and however they evolve.
Jennifer
From: Pat Baldwin patbooks@PRIMENET.COM
Subject: Artists book
Ohhhhhhh Peter! I feel a can of worms coming on!
Pat
From: Angela Moll am45@CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
What about a book which is itself the thing to be communicated, not a support for conveying something other than itself. Even though it may seem to be just a rewording of the term to be defined, I do feel important to stress the fact that in an artist-book the book is the art, not just a possible enabling factor for time delayed (mass)communication.
Angela
From: Indigo Som indigos@SIRIUS.COM
Subject: bookness
Although I think the word "bookness" is really hilarious, it does have... er, usefulness, hee hee...
Bookness may include, or be evoked by, any or all (or none?) of the following: the idea of the page, text of any kind, images, sequence, binding of any kind or structural *reference* (interpret broadly) to "traditional" or "recognizable" book bindings, materials commonly associated w/ books (i.e. bookcloth, headbands &c.), a story, interactivity (so that the viewer can also be called a reader, as of a book), having been made by a person who usually makes books, something simply being called a book (treading gingerly on thin ice here...)
I think someone once said a scroll doesn't have bookness. I disagree heartily in the name of all my Chinese ancestors.
I've been making what I call "wall books". Lots of "pages" of silk tacked up on the wall in particular order. Some people look at em & say "quilt" but I've never really made quilts at all. I've made lots of books though. So I get to say it's a book ;)
ok, now i will really go to sleep like i meant to before i was provoked by peter's audacious question!
Indigo Som *** bitchy buddha press *** indigos@sirius.com
From: "Peter D. Verheyen" verheyen@philobiblon.com
Subject: Re: Artists book
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Yeah I know and I'm a masochist too. I have my set ideas which I'm clinging to with increasing fervor and at the same time trying to be open about things. Comes from working with art students. I need to tell a group of students what an "artists book" is. Figured this would be the place to get the broad spectrum.
Distinction I've already seen consistency in is:
artists book vs. livre d'artiste
Now about those BSOs (book shaped objects)... Come on, does anyone seriously believe they're books? (yes, I'm baiting here, but be articulate, and above all, civil). NOTE: This isn't directed at anyone in particular.
Peter
At 08:30 PM 3/4/98 -0700, you wrote: >Ohhhhhhh Peter! I feel a can of worms coming on! > >Pat > >
=================================================
Der Buchbinder als Architekt des Buches baut eine Fassade seiner Zeit. Edwin
Redslob
Peter D. Verheyen
mailto:verheyen@philobiblon.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
From: Richard Miller rmiller@PETERBORO.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Charles wrote:
>No, this won't work either. There are plenty of 'artists' books' where it >is precisely the textual which is of primary interest. Typographical >artists' books, and, anyway, is typography textual or visual -- isn't it both?
Here we go further into Pat's can of worms.
For me typography is inherently visual. The whole point is to make the words visable/readable,attractive/whatever. How many printed versions of Poe's "The Raven" exist? The essential difference between them is visual: The typeface chosen, the size of type, the paper, the illustrations (if any), etc. I'm sorry Charles, but while a Typographer can make an artists book, it's primary interest is still visual.
Respectfully, Richard.
---------------------------------------- Richard Miller rmiller@peterboro.net
The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild website: http://kawartha.net/~rmiller/cbbag/CBBAGhome.html
From: Michael Morin ba202@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Artists' Books
Artists' Books: I intend, therefor I am.
When Marcel Duchamp installs a urinal in a museum, it is art. If Sophie the plumber installs a urinal in the same museum's lavatory, it's a toilet and nothing more.
Intent is everything. An Artists' book is different from other books simply because it conceived and executed from the beginning as a work of art by its creator. Nothing anyone thinks changes the originial intent of the artist.
Art students should like that. Many others will not.
Any book can be artty, artistic, designed by artists, be about artists or about art... but that isn't what makes a book an artists' book.
I once watched a couple dozen librarians examine 20 or 30 artists' books as part of professional field trip to a major art museum's research library. They seemed to understand the differences between William Blake's Book of Job, The Klemscott Chaucher and Susan King's Women in Cars but the defining moment came when they were shown and asked to inspect and coment on the artists' book entitled _Boundless_. I apologize for not remembering the artist's name, but this book is simply and round book that has a wire spiral binding that completly binds all of the 360 degrees of the books edge. A book with no entry was too much for these librarians. They were not prepared for books as art. It was fun to witness their puzlement. A book made to conceal all. No access is kryptonite to librarins. In short, it really bugged a few of them.
Whatever the intent of the artist, acess to the interior was't one of them. In this case intent was everything. Perhaps as it should be.
It may not help your case, but I would tell your students to read and study Willam Blakes life and work. To me, he encompasses much of what I would consider about intent and artists' books. He was published by thrid party only once. His work _The_Grave_ (1813?) was engraved by another line engraver and much of what made Blake, Blake is lost. You can compare the same work as engraved by Blake himself and compare intent and personal vision (or in Blake's case visions!) the intent of is work is clear(er). A good palce to start a conversation. So is Duchamps bronzed ball of string (Philly Museum of Art)
Hope is helps...best regards.
Michael Morin Artist/Librarian
From: Donald Farren dfarren@CONCENTRIC.NET
Subject: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
The question is of course amendable to a literature search. But, as a spontaneous reaction to the task of fashioning a definition, my thoughts are:
that it is important to
1. Commit to an apostrophe. We are dealing with "artist's", not "artists".
2. Recognize that the elements to be dealt with are: a. the artist, b. the book, c. the making, and d. the respective relationships among the artist, the book, and the making.
3. Leave undefined "artist" and "book", expecting the maker and the viewer (the person who experiences the book) to decide what those are.
4. Focus on the artist's making rather than on the result. (The viewer controls reaction to the result. The maker can only hope to condition the reaction. Reactions to the result can be ignorant or naive.)
5. Recognize that the artist's making is a temporary process.
6. Recognize that the result of the artist's making is an object, rather than a process. (One could argue that the result is a process. But I think that doing so would unduly stretch the meaning of "book".)
7. Recognize that the artist works (with, within, around, against) pre-existing conventions of bookmaking.
Accordingly, how does the following sound? (I think that succinctness is valuable in definitions, but I think that this definition accommodates the concerns about this subject that have been posted so far on BOOK_ARTS-L in this round.)
"An artist's book is a book made by an artist. In the making of the object, expression by the artist predominates over conventions of bookmaking."
<*>-==--==--==--==--==--==--==-<*>-==--==--==--==--==--==--==-<*>
Donald Farren voice 301.951.9479 email dfarren@concentric.net
fax 301.951.3898 4009 Bradley Lane, Chevy Chase, MD 20815
<*>-==--==--==--==--==--==--==-<*>-==--==--==--==--==--==--==-<*>
From: Shireen Holman tholman@CLARK.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
It seems to me that if you have to try to pin down what an artist's book is, it would be a book whose whole entity is intended to be a work of art (as opposed to something that is primarily intended to be a means of communicating non-visual ideas, where the design and structure are subordinate to the communication, even though they may enhance it). I suppose there would always be some works on the borderline between books and artist's books and between artist's books and sculptures. But art is not something that can be neatly divided into categories, which doesn't mean that categories can't be useful if you aren't rigid about them.
***********************************************
Shireen Holman, Printmaker and Book Artist
email: tholman@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/tholman/shireen/index.htm
***********************************************
From: Karen Sanders karen@COMPGEN.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Maybe the difference between an artist'sbook and a book done by an artist is sort of like a print and a packaging label. Both done by artists, both well-crafted, but for a different purpose.
> It seems to me that if you have to try to pin down what an artist's book > is, it would be a book whose whole entity is intended to be a work of art > (as opposed to something that is primarily intended to be a means of > communicating non-visual ideas, where the design and structure are > subordinate to the communication, even though they may enhance it).
From: charles alexander chax@THERIVER.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>For me typography is inherently visual. The whole point is to make the >words visable/readable,attractive/whatever. How many printed versions of >Poe's "The Raven" exist? The essential difference between them is visual: >The typeface chosen, the size of type, the paper, the illustrations (if >any), etc. I'm sorry Charles, but while a Typographer can make an artists >book, it's primary interest is still visual.
It's perhaps primary, but typography without a distinctive relationship of that typography to the content/meaning of the text at hand, is merely a typographer's hubris, or just bad work, perhaps.
cheers, richard
charles
From: Michael Babcock mjb@PAMET.COM
Subject: Definition of the Artists Book
Um, sorry, but what is "art"? Talk about regressing to fundamental questions...
It's all a matter of intent. (see Dada, et le objet truve [sp]) Skill sets, craft and presentation aside.
Rather than belabor the vagaries of all the possible definitions of an "artist book" clearly what Peter seeks is simply a concise and articulate description that the layperson can grasp.
How about:
An "artist book" is an assemblage of folios, bound or otherwise, meant to be observed in a sequential fashion, either arbitrary or = predetirmined, and comprised of elements both textual, or pictorial. Construction is often of an importance equal to that of content. Modes of reproduction are variable, as are methods of construction.
Or something like that. What do I know, I'm a designer/job printer?
michael bABCock interrobang letterpress
From: Susan King SusanKing@COMPUSERVE.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
Message text written by "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!"
"Perhaps for teaching purposes, it is best to show various examples that fulfill the many definitions that you will no doubt receive from this query."
-------------------- End Original Message --------------------
I have to agree with Janice Braun on this issue. I find the attempt to
define the genre limits the possibilities, especially for art students. How much
better to show a variety of books to start a conversation about the issue,
rather than presenting a definition or several definitions. Showing what
artist's books HAVE been sparks the imagination, especially for art students who
deal in realm of the visual.
Susan King Paradise Press
From: Sally Jackson serifm@FASTLANE.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
There is an interesting site with a discussion of the definition of a book. The URL is http://www.wam.umd.edu/~dawson/is-it-a-book/
Sally Jackson
From: Roberta Lavadour paper@OREGONTRAIL.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
Peter, This process that your post has begun may in itself be defining the Artist's Book. Could it be that that was your intent? I'm interested in the ways the process has mimicked an artist's book...The project begins with a concept which is then explored in various ways, sometimes with conflicting opinions, then held together by a "thread", literal or figurative. Roberta
From: Peter Verheyen verheyen@philobiblon.com
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
The intended audience here are Art History and Museum Studies students in a class about illustration. There is a section on artist's books and this is where the discussion started. People wanted to know what was the difference between a traditional fine binding, an artist's book, and a livre d'artiste. The first and last are easier. It's the one in the middle. I don't even want to get into the subject of art vs. craft though many "fine bindings" are lacking in "art" but superlative craft and many "artists books" superlative in art but a failure in the craft aspect. That's something for another dreary, gray day.
I agree about the examples part thought. It is important to be able to show what is meant> However, I feel one also has to explain it, or at least try to.
For me, the "bookness" aspect is very important. As Richard Miller wrote, "if it looks like a book..." Yes I consider scrolls books. I would have a very hard time considering a round object with a spiral all-around a book however. Maybe book derived art, or a bso, but no, not a book. I think that there needs to be some form of content (text, illus) but then there are many beautiful _blank_ books which display all the other properties of bookness AND art, yet the content is lacking. I think its important not to pigeonhole oursleves into fixed definitions, but at the same time it annoys me to no end to have students in a bookmaking class be told that anything can be a book. Not everything is. That doesn't make it non-art, just not a book.
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Verheyen, Conservation Librarian 315.443.9937 <wk> 315.443.9510
<fax>
mailto:verheyen@philobiblon.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
From: Peter Verheyen verheyen@philobiblon.com
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
That wasn't what I had originally intended, but I'm nt adverse to having it turn into that. The definative explanation of an "artist's book" developed on a listserv... Why not. Actually I was just looking for some reasonably concise definitions of what book artists considered to "artist's books."
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Verheyen, Conservation Librarian 315.443.9937 <wk> 315.443.9510
<fax>
mailto:verheyen@philobiblon.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
From: J Laflamme arslibri@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
Book as an art ,and an artist's book are two completelly different things. An artist's book can be make by somebody who is not a bookbinder, who does not know the book structure. For him/her a form or an image of a book is used to convey a certain message that is not connected with book as a medium. Someone that makes a book that is perceived as art must be an artist as well as an excellent bookbinder. Book as an art must combine two equaly important elements: an intellectual and artistc message when comes to the design of a cover,and sound structure. In other words the expression and form must melt together. In artist's book, the symbol or an image of a book serves only as an excuse for expressing some other idea. In an artist's book the EXPRESSION is a primary concern. In book that is an art both EXPRESSION ,and STRUCTURE are equaly important. Artist's book? Piece where bookish shapes,objects or book symbols serve as a form of artistic expression.
Ksenia KOpystynska
From: "Judith B. Kerman" kerman@TARDIS.SVSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Ah, yes, another exercises of the blind men and the elephant... we all, most probably, construct these definitions so that they either (1) reflect our own practices or (2) exclude the practices we dislike.
However, here's mine...
An artist's book is an artwork which explores the nature of "bookness" by the way it combines/exploits structual, visual, tactile and textual elements (or perhaps structural and semantic elements) (or perhaps syntactic and semantic elements) depending on your religious preference... $:-)
_________ |\ /| /________/( |? \ / ?| (________(/(___ |??? \/ ???| /_(________(/__/( | Judy | (______________(/( | Kerman | (Mayapple Press(/( | Saginaw, | (______________(/ \ ? MI ? / \ ?? / http://www.cris.com/~Jkerman \/
From: Nicholas Yeager artifex@PIPELINE.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
An artist's book is an object created to convey ideas and experiences to the "reader" or audience wherein materials are manufactured, manipulated, and assembled to express the concept of the artist. This may result in a sculptural machine that works like a conventional book, or it may result in two-dimensional material that can be experienced in a moment. That the artist chooses "bookness" as their vehicle for delivering the message, indicates that there is some relationship to the viewing action being perceived as "reading" and the crafting of the art object.
Peter: After reading what I just wrote, I blame you for making me think about things like: Why is the sky blue? and other imponderables. Thanks for the opportunity to hurt my head.
Nicholas
Nicholas G. Yeager 51 Warren St.#2 NY, NY 10007 212.346.9609 artifex@pipeline.com
From: Daria dherlihy@TIAC.NET
Subject: Bookin' into Books
Dear Peter and Friends of the List:
(Ahem)
An artist's book is a form of art that alludes to traditional book characteristics in one or more ways.
(cringe)
May I add that very soon portable electronic books will be available with electronically "turnable" pages, instant index, etc., the pages seen but not touchable on a liquid crystal screen in a book shape folder, with perhaps all the books written by one author stored on a teeny weenie disc that you can insert from a little storage pocket of discs holding 100's of other "books". Just think, when you go on vacation you can take all your favorite authors, all your favorite museum artworks, all your favorite whatever in your over the shoulder bag. Just remember to bring your little solar panel attachment, or extra battery. Eventually, these will be leather covered, with coptic binding and gold stamping and quickly evolve into artist's books.
Love to all
Lilias
From: Leda Black LMB@MATH.AMS.ORG
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
I Like Mr. Farren's "definition". --L. Black, imp.
From: Catherine Kanner penandink@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Definition Artist's Books
Dear All,
Let the definitions begin and end with the Book. Artists have countless venues for expression, yet "we" have chosen Books. This choice originates from love of the form and respect for the power and flexability of the form.
Books communicate.
Whether artists uses the form conventionally, or tweek it one way or the other, intrepretation and inspiration comes from a deep connection to "experience" with books. Artists add depth and breadth to the defination of the form. As with all aspects of art there are those who will push the envelope. But human beings look for meaning everywhere...that is why we make art in the first place.
C. Kanner The Melville Press
From: Janice Esther Westley Braun jbraun@MILLS.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists B
With all due respect, I was being mildly facetious when I posed the "what is art" question. Yet, it is clear from this and other discussions that there is no consensus. To date, the boundaries of the form have not been established by scholars, artists, bookbinders, printers, etc. etc. In order to be critical, there is no reason not to "regress" to fundamental questions, particularly when the form has not been codified. There have been some concise articulate definitions here (one or two that I wish I had written), but I think it is a mistake at this point to tell students that an artists' (artist's!!!) book is x,y, and z, with this or that qualification simply because it is easier than explaining that there has been this raging debate for several years. Meanwhile, artists make books, printers make art objects, people create electronic visual media that they call on-line artist(')s(') books, and life goes on. Peter, I don't think there will be a definitive answer until there is more critical thought put into the matter. I think it is important to tell students that this is a complex and confusing matter with its own vocabulary (I still can't bring myself to say the word "bookness") and ongoing evolution. There are still obvious features that pointed out that make a book, more or less, a trade book, a fine press book, a livre d'artiste, etc. BTW, I have an exhibition here right now with the subtitle: The fine press artists' book (not my term, so don't bother to flame me). The catalog contains an excellent short essay by Gary Young on the definition of what exactly that means..... It's anarchy, we love it. Back to lurking. p.s. michael babcock, i do agree that intent is an important element.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Janice Braun Special Collections Curator Olin Library, Mills College jbraun@mills.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: Richard Miller rmiller@PETERBORO.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
I wrote:
>>... while a Typographer can make an artists >>book, it's primary interest is still visual.
and Charles replied:
>It's perhaps primary, but typography without a distinctive relationship of >that typography to the content/meaning of the text at hand, is merely a >typographer's hubris, or just bad work, perhaps.
I don't disagree with you Charles, in fact, I do agree. As a professional (commercial) book designer/typographer for 25 years, and a private (letterpress) printer for almost as long, I have the utmost respect for the text when I'm "doing my thing".
However, referring back to my proposed definition of "artists book" (or artist's book), I said:
> "Artists book" is a ... book or book-like object in which the primary >interest, > or emphasis, is visual rather than textual.
I still think this covers, rather succinctly, all forms of books -- or book-like objects (but not book-shaped objects) -- made by artists, typographers, printmakers, etc, as long as the inherent ideals of "bookness" are present. Stray too far from the ideals and the work ceases to be a book and becomes something else.
I think it should also be pointed out that a work can be *both* a book (ie: a traditional book) and an artist's book, for example when a previously unpublished text has professional and artistic care lavished upon the editing, the typesetting, the illustrations (if any), the printing, the binding, etc.
For me, the operative word in my definition is "primary", even if the relationship between visual/textual is only 51/49.
Oh hell: you say pot -ay- toe, I say pot -ah- toe, let's call the whole thing off ;-)
Love to all, Richard.
---------------------------------------- Richard Miller rmiller@peterboro.net
The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild website: http://kawartha.net/~rmiller/cbbag/CBBAGhome.html
From: Richard Miller rmiller@PETERBORO.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Ksenia KOpystynska (or J Laflamme) wrote:
>Book as an art ,and an artist's book are two completelly different >things. ...
Not necessarily. Also,
>Someone that makes a book that is perceived as art must be an artist as >well as an excellent bookbinder. ...
Again, not necessarily.
>... Book as an art must combine two equaly >important elements: an intellectual and artistc message when comes to >the design of a cover,and sound structure. In other words the expression >and form must melt together.
Someone, I think, is being a little hidebound (forgive the pun) here. The artistic/intellectual message must permeate more than the cover (forgive me, but the poster sounds like a traditional binder), and sound structure has nothing to do with it.
>In artist's book, the symbol or an image of a book serves only as an >excuse for expressing some other idea. In an artist's book the >EXPRESSION is a primary concern. ...
Here, I agree, although I would use another word than excuse (such as: a means for expressing...)
>... In book that is an art both EXPRESSION >,and STRUCTURE are equaly important.
Again, nonsense, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Regards, Richard.
---------------------------------------- Richard Miller rmiller@peterboro.net
The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild website: http://kawartha.net/~rmiller/cbbag/CBBAGhome.html
From: Richard Miller rmiller@PETERBORO.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Judith Kerman wrote:
>An artist's book is an artwork which explores the nature of "bookness" by >the way it combines/exploits structual, visual, tactile and textual >elements (or perhaps structural and semantic elements) (or perhaps >syntactic and semantic elements) depending on your religious preference...
I think you could end it at "bookness". Good one Judy.
Richard.
PS: Isn't this fun ;-)
---------------------------------------- Richard Miller rmiller@peterboro.net
The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild website: http://kawartha.net/~rmiller/cbbag/CBBAGhome.html
From: Georgie McNeese gmcneese@SURFSOUTH.COM
Subject: (no subject)
Artist book - A booklike structure of at least 100 pages, opened to approximately page 50, spread evenly with a gem from the recently opened can of worms and SLAMMED FORCEFULLY!!!!! until bits of gunk are evenly distributed over the book, the table, and the artist. (Preferrably within splatting distance of the urinal in the museum.) G
From: CamilleEon CamilleEon@AOL.COM
Subject: De Bait...
Sigh... Some of us choose to work within the (as yet, thankfully BOUNDLESS) Artists/Books can of worms precisely because of the utterly refreshing elusiveness of a set of defining LIMITATIONS.
Reading all these postings is fun, but it also makes me think of what happens to beautiful working dogs (Collies, Irish Setters) when the breed becomes registered and standardized. They become instantly recognizable, and though they retain some beauty and functional traits, but the brains and the heart (which made them so admirable) are gone.
Let's hear it for the ol' "continuously evolving genre".
Melissa Jay Craig Chicago
From: Michael Morin ba202@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
At 09:04 AM 3/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>"An artist's book is a book made by an artist. In the making of the >object, expression by the artist predominates over conventions of bookmaking." > > >
"expression by the artist predominates over conventions of bookmaking."
This works for me except one could create an artists' book that conforms to "all other conventions of bookmaking" except intent. If your use of the word "expression" implies intent, then I think were OK. However if if you mean "expression" as a visualization of a creative act, then I'm not sure, but I think your close.
Best regards,
Michael Morin
Celtic Press-Buffalo NY
From: Michael Morin ba202@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
At 12:11 PM 3/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >After reading what I just wrote, I blame you for making me think about >things like: Why is the sky blue? and other imponderables. Thanks for the >opportunity to hurt my head. > >Nicholas >
Why is the sky blue. That's easy. If it were brown it would be too depressing. It's true. Until Bethlehem Steel closed down the sky in Buffalo was always brown! We already had brown water and purple-green dirt (Trucked in special from Niagara Falls) Ever since EPA and putting a brick in my toilet, everything has been blue sky and sunshine. Blue sky is just good design, and we all know that when we see it, right?
Here to stay..Go Browns!
Michael Morin Celtic Press, Brown-Town NY
From: Edith Abeyta mindmatr@teleport.com
Organization: Mind Over Matter
Subject: what is a book definition
This is my first time replying to the list but I think the discussion of what is an artists' book is great. My reply is not a definition but a small addition to the discussion. I see most (but not all) artists' books as self contained galleries, each page being a wall and the whole book as being the show. Edith mindmatr@swcp
From: Michael Morin ba202@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Re: (no subject)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
At 10:07 PM 3/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >Artist book - A booklike structure of at least 100 pages, opened to >approximately page 50, spread evenly with a gem from the recently opened >can of worms and SLAMMED FORCEFULLY!!!!! until bits of gunk are evenly >distributed over the book, the table, and the artist. (Preferrably >within splatting distance of the urinal in the museum.) >G > I hope we're talkin' real worms here. I was talkin' real toilets with real sky blue water in 'em!
L.H.O.O.Q.
Marcel
From: Michael Morin ba202@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Re: De Bait...
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
At 11:17 PM 3/5/98 EST, you wrote: >Sigh... >Reading all these postings is fun, but it also makes me think of what happens >to beautiful working dogs (Collies, Irish Setters) when the breed becomes >registered and standardized. They become instantly recognizable, and though >they retain some beauty and functional traits, but the brains and the heart >(which made them so admirable) are gone.
Replace the word dog with the word artists. We got to get rid of those berets! Thanks for the insight.
Michael Morin Celtic Press Buffalo NY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "One's best work is done in defiance on management!"
From: Michael Morin ba202@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
At 09:08 AM 3/5/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Someone that makes a book that is perceived as art must be an artist as >well as an excellent bookbinder. Book as an art must combine two equaly >important elements: an intellectual and artistc message when comes to >the design of a cover,and sound structure. In other words the expression >and form must melt together.
Why?
>In artist's book, the symbol or an image of a book serves only as an >excuse for expressing some other idea. In an artist's book the >EXPRESSION is a primary concern.
How can you know that?
>Artist's book? Piece where bookish shapes,objects or book symbols serve >as a form of artistic expression.
>Ksenia KOpystynska > I don't wish to offend, but I think this is plain silly. An Artists' Book dosen't have to be made by an expert binder to qualify as an artists' book any more that a painting needs to be well crafted to be a work of art. Craftspersonship is a useful tool or perhaps a goal, but nothing by itself. Don't I love good, well crafted bindings and well made paintings? You bet I do. But Hamlet would still be Hamlet, even if it was written with a nail on a pine board. Gabor Peterdi (sp?) the print professor and Rembrant scholar at Yale once spoke on a panel I went to see about whether prints are equal partners to paintings in terms of ART, The Big A! He responded that all one needs to decide is whether or not something like a Rembrant etching is a great work of art or not. How it compares with a painting of the same subject by the same artist is not important. Each must hold up as a great work on their own.
The achivement afforded any artist's work may be greatly enhanced by sound design, structure and craft. However, if we rejected all of Frank's Lloyd Wright work that suffered from a poorly crafted or badly designed roof system, we would have to reject Wright as an great artist. His work is great in spite of those failings, not because they don't leak when it rains. I can see a Wright house from my studio window. I can also see all the roofers trucks every spring parked out front. It's still a great work of art and a roofer's nightmare! One has nothing to do with the other, unless of course, you're the owner!
Frankly speaking
Michael Morin Celtic Press Buffalo NY
From: Paul Anderson paul@GEEKY1.EBTECH.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Michael Morin wrote:
> > Why is the sky blue. > Well, actually, it's because the majority of the sun's light in the longer wavelengths(the red) is filtered out by the atmosphere, leaving the shorter wavelengths, the blue, to filter through.
BTW, IMHO, art is something meant to evoke an emotion in the person that beholds it. TTYL!
From: Linda Richards scribe@SMARTYPANTS.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
My first post. Forgive my jumping in.
Michael Morin wrote:
> Why is the sky blue. That's easy. If it were brown it would be too > depressing. It's true. Until Bethlehem Steel closed down the sky in > Buffalo was always brown! We already had brown water and purple-green dirt > (Trucked in special from Niagara Falls) Ever since EPA and putting a brick > in my toilet, everything has been blue sky and sunshine. Blue sky is just > good design, and we all know that when we see it, right?
So happy + sunshine = good design? I don't think that's what you meant. Depending on the mood one was trying to establish, brown water, purple-green dirt and brown sky might -- in fact -- be the perfect design for the purpose.
'Course, now we're back to collies and breed standards, aren't we?
Regards,
Linda
A u t h o r & J o u r n a l i s t http://www.smartypants.net
Editor, January Magazine http://www.januarymagazine.com
From: leil lucy alexander leilx@OLYMPUS.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
I myself am tempted strongly to say that craft is an important part of an artist's book--one thing that has annoyed me a great deal is the lack of interest in and attention to craft, resulting in otherwise wonderful artist's books being either impossible to handle, or not sturdy (when that was not intended by the artist) or just plain inappropriate to the content. I think that craft is underrated in book arts. many painters, potters, sculpters, drawers, printmakers, poets have learned the craft of their art form before going on to stretch it or make great works or art. no subtle shame is attached to any of that. still, I have sometimes found among book arts students a disdain for the craft related to books--printing and binding, among others--a sense that craft is limiting or just plain not relevant! I find craft sets a person free, and gives a solid base to work from. however, I have seen some very effective books which were made in ways I wouldn't do and I know several book artists who are not interested in the craft of books at all. I would love to hear other people's ideas on the topic of craft and art (which I find a spurious distinction, but sometimes useful) and how they work for or against each other in book arts. also if people are interested in the craft of it if they came from other disciplines and how they perceive it.
I think intent is important, but it isn't all. there is a line, to me anyway, somewhere between artist's books and other forms of art (this is another pet peeve left from last year). I think that some book shaped objects are not books at all, and I don't care what the artist thinks or intended. (however, I would never tell an artist that about their work. my opinion is strictly mine and i am sure some of my work could fall into the BSO catagory.) I do think there is value in making "regular" sort of books before going into book shaped objects. I found that some people who skipped that step seem to feel that they were doing the more "out there" work, and those of us who work more in traditional forms are taking the "easy" way out.
two things that seemed to be reasonably consensed upon when I was in school was narrative impulse and sequentiality and that elusive bookness. however, a lot of pieces had none or little of these.
the whether to define question is a hard one, but I still think it has merit. what I find is that if I don't do some defining, someone else, who might or even probably knows less than me will do it instead and that is maddening. and I think for students (having recently been one myself), that looking at books is the best, and being given perhaps a working definition, or a definition in progress (with that stated, so it isn't taken as static), and the chance to develop one's own over time was very helpful. also, for me at least, a solid base in the technical aspects. endless discussions and going round and round about it gets boring, quick.
fascinating discussion! this is what I was looking for when I first came to the list.
leil
From: Art Rubino Art_Rubino@CLASSIC.MSN.COM
Subject: Re: Bookin' into Books
Well Daria, here is my .$.02 worth. I appreciate your skepticism, and to a certain extent I share it. Still.............
As a book lover and bookseller, I use computers all the time. The thing about it is, you should not view these machines as a replacement for the printed book [a common and understandable misconception fostered on us by computer nerds and unimaginative computer zealots and fanatics], but as another media format, like the paperback version of the hardcover edition, or the CD version of the LP or Cassette Tape.
The new multimedia formats now being developed for personal computers will allow full screen video, text, graphics, and multilingual hi fi audio to be combined into these presentations. We will see these 'books' over the internet in a few years, as speeds improve, and it will allow many people to see and appreciate important books, artist books as well, that they would never be able to purchase. All that being as it may, I have a personal collection of more than 20,000 fine books that I love to handle, read and enjoy.
There is a place for these computerized books in our lives, and they will be great tools. Of course, a fool with a tool is still a fool.
Art Rubino Numismatic & Philatelic Arts of Santa Fe Antiquarian Book Sellers P.O. Box 9712 Santa Fe, NM 87504 USA Phone 505 982 8792 Fax 505 982 0291 Email Art_Rubino@msn.com
From: "Jack C. Thompson" tcl@TELEPORT.COM
Subject: Re: Artists' Books
Some years ago a former employee of mine became the first book arts artist-in-residence at a local college.
I attended her first exhibit. Among her *books* were slabs of clay baked in a kiln, and dead tree branches with bits of paper hanging about.
To me, these were not books. But she was the artist, and what the artist says goes.
That's what it says in all of the books.
I haven't written the other book yet. The book which says that what the artist says is a book may not be a book.
Maybe it's only an article in an obscure journal, but you get my point.
A book is a three-dimensional functional object.
That's my definition. A set of kilned clay slabs may qualify; bits of paper hung about tree prunings may qualify.
But, to me, a book is something which I can hold in my hand while turning pages/leaves which have something upon them which can impart additional information to me.
Now, I have held in my hand volumes of Audubon's elephant folio while moving them from place to place for conservation (very large books!) and copies of the bible printed so small that the entire text needed a magnifying glass to read.
All books. According to my earlier definition.
It is not my place to say how an artist may define the results of his/her creative effort.
But, as a conservator, artisan, technician, and mechanic, it is within my power to stipulate that if a *book* is not a three dimensional functional object, then it is a sculpture. Plain and simple.
The copy of the King James Bible opened to the New Testament, book of Matthew and drowned in plastic and lying on my mother's table comes somewhere in between.
Trust me on this....
Jack
Jack C. Thompson Thompson Conservation Lab 7549 N. Fenwick Portland, OR 97217
503/735-3942 (voice/fax) www.teleport.com/~tcl
From: Isca4art2B Isca4art2B@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
Right on! The form and the content exist in a symbiotic relationship with the artists book- which is almost never true with mass produced books with the possible exception of some childrens books. Louise
From: Isca4art2B Isca4art2B@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Artists book
Eear Pat- I'm fairly new to this list- but I gather Peter has a certain bias against artists' books. Louise
From: Isca4art2B Isca4art2B@AOL.COM
Subject: too much!
Better to be a bookworm than slosh around a can of worms.Louise
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
I don't know why I am doing this. Just noticed the crowd and wandered over, I guess.
I am not an artist (which doesn't mean I can't be artistic upon occasion, I suppose). My 2 cents on the topic would be that an artists book (where ever one chooses to place the apostrophe)is a comment by an individual on any aspect of the common (i.e. public) view of a book, where as a bookbinder like myself who thinks in terms of craft prefers to work within that public perception of a book. Public here does not mean current public opinion, but the historical evolution of books as a familar part of daily life from clay tablets and bark to the modern paperback.
I feel like a terrorist tossing a bomb into a crowd. I'm gonna run.
Dorothy
From: Peter Verheyen verheyen@philobiblon.com
Subject: Re: Artists book
I'm going to take the bait. I do have a certain bias, but not against artist's book per say. I've seen some beautiful work, and some terrible work. The same problem exists with tradition binding as well. The problems I have are that all too often I have seen poor workmanship excused with the phrase, "it's art" or dismissed as irrelevant. If I look at a print I expect it to be well crafted, if I look at a painting, a collage, a sculpture I expect the same. Don't use glue sticks rubber cement... In traditional bookwork it's much easier and more socially acceptable to be hard on poor workmanship, in art, and I sense it more with the "artist's book" scene it doesn't seem as acceptable.
Secondly, while I am primarily a rare book consevator, and execute "fine / design" bindings (read traditional) I also have the opportunity here to interact with a great many of the "Foundation" (first year) art students who all seem to be doing "books." The definition for these is a book is whatever you want it to be... The instructors themselves while having great ideas, are not completely well versed in the craft aspect. I think that if you want to create "artist's books," please do. I've even bought several, but please have a solid foundation in the craft of the book, especially if you're going to teach... Otherwise it's "lights out." If you're making a sculpture that looks like a book form, at least acknowledge that it's a sculpture, not a book. It may be derived from a book, but it's not. This gets back to the bookness aspect. Philip Smith, a (VERY) noted English design binder wrote a letter which is published near the top of the "Links" section on the Book Arts Web, URL below. It's worth a read.
I think the craft and art need to continue to evolve, as they have done from the beginning. Let's just not excuse a sloppyness (anywhere) in the name of art.
That's where I'm coming from.
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Verheyen, Conservation Librarian 315.443.9937 <wk> 315.443.9510
<fax>
mailto:verheyen@philobiblon.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Isca4art2B wrote:
> Eear Pat- I'm fairly new to this list- but I gather Peter has a certain bias > against artists' books. Louise >
From: Peter Verheyen verheyen@philobiblon.com
Subject: The book
I'm going to interject a little humor here.
The caption reads "You see, it's written right here, it is a book."
http://info.uibk.ac.at/c108/gifs/postk1.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Verheyen, Conservation Librarian 315.443.9937 <wk> 315.443.9510
<fax>
mailto:verheyen@philobiblon.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
From: Ray Bliss Rich r_rich@conknet.com
Organization: Meditations on Paper Subject: Re: Artists book
Peter Verheyen wrote:
> The problems I have are that all too often I have seen poor workmanship excused > with > the phrase, "it's art"
Here.. here... I'm tired of the idea that if someone is making some sort of statement, that makes their work worthy of the label art... if someone wants to hang a urinal someplace other than the lavatory to make a statement, I don't agree that it automatically becomes a work of art...
> I think the craft and art need to continue to evolve, as they have done > from the beginning. Let's just not excuse a sloppyness (anywhere) in the > name of art.
Nor laziness... -- Ray Bliss Rich -------------------------- http://www.conknet.com/~r_rich
From: Sam Lanham slanham@HCTC.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Peter's position pretty well says it for me (even though I'm guilty of using glue sticks sometimes).
The word "book-ness," for some reason brings up in my mind "Loch Ness." Maybe that's what we're dealing with: a strange and illusive creature, occasionally glimpsed but never predictable.
Sam Lanham Sam Lanham (slanham@hctc.net)
From: charles alexander chax@THERIVER.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
I really appreciate the thoughtfulness given this issue on this list. Like Peter and some others, I was trained in the fine crafts of bookmaking, but in an art department where the imagination as to what a book might be (fairly, but not totally, open definition) certainly played a key role. I have made a lot of books since then, but, in part because I chose to make books which engaged literary texts in a kind of dialogue about what kind of book (structurally and otherwise) might best collaborate with them, I've sort of been on various borders between literary bookmaking, fine bookmaking, and artist's bookmaking. I'm perfectly happy on that border, and whil I know I'm not, craftwise, absolutely the best printer or binder or papermaking coming out of the training I had, I think the craftsmanship in the books does hold up fairly well.
Still, with this kind of training, I love books which surprise me, whose imaginative reach thrills me and perhaps makes me sees "book" in a way I haven't seen it before -- or some aspect of "book," at least. And if a creatively made book or book-commenting or book-like object does so, I am willing to give it a lot of leeway in terms of its craft. Generally, my favorite books are those I love to read and whose whole being collaborates in the meaning of that reading. But when given a choice of the finely crafted book whose form doesn't particularly interact with its content (or, frankly, whose content may not interest me), or a less well made 'book' which is clearly a powerful imaginatively made object -- I'd usually rather be holding/seeing/reading (whatever is appropriate here) the latter. And when a book can be both well made and imaginatively powerful, yes, that's the best it gets.
charles
From: Shireen Holman tholman@CLARK.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
At 08:43 AM 3/6/98 -0500, Dorothy wrote: > My 2 cents on the topic would be that an artists >book (where ever one chooses to place the apostrophe)is a comment by >an individual on any aspect of the common (i.e. public) view of a >book, >I feel like a terrorist tossing a bomb into a crowd. I'm gonna run.
Since you tossed the bomb -- I do not agree at all that an artist's book is a comment on aspects of a book. Some art is commentary on other art, but most art, I would say, has, or should have, its own reason to exist. Peter says --The problems I have are that all too often I have seen poor workmanship excused with the phrase, "it's art" or dismissed as irrelevant. I think this relates to a discussion on the list some time ago about the use of archival materials in one's work. To me, equally important in the making of a work of art are the materials one uses, craftmanship, the content, and the way in which all this is put together. If you ignore the importance of any one of these, you end up with something inferior.
***********************************************
Shireen Holman, Printmaker and Book Artist email: tholman@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/tholman/shireen/index.htm
***********************************************
From: Jennifer Vignone opus@TIAC.NET
Subject: urinal and duchamp
In regard to the whole urinal thing...isn't the comment being made by Duchamp putting his name on a urinal and putting it in an exhibit a combination of:
1. I'm an artist and I say this is art so it is. 2. I'm an artist, but this is just a toilet, so if I say it's art, it is. 3. I'm an artist, but this is just a toilet, so if I say it's art, is it? 4. I'm an artist, but this is just a toilet, will you allow me to define it as art for you simply because I say so? 5. This is a toilet, make up your own mind. But at least I got you to think.
and if this was the thought process, and he was the first to do such a thing--he was a genius (at least I think so)...then it is art...at least to me...because it's more than just the urninal..it is the entire process...at least in this case...and at the time in art history when this occurred....Art can take on many forms.
In Duchamp's case, he himself, as an individual, was a work of art.
just my opinion, jennifer
From: Nicholas Yeager artifex@PIPELINE.COM
Subject: Re: Artists book
Peter said:
>In traditional bookwork it's much easier and more socially acceptable to be >hard on poor workmanship, in art, and I sense it more with the "artist's >book" scene it doesn't seem as acceptable. > What I find is often the case with "book-artists" is their disdain for craftsmanship and a well-engineered book. It's as if well-made books are disqualified from being considered as an "artist's book" because the person making said object is merely a craftsperson and incapable of art.
The conventional wisdom of much of the book arts scene is that art requires breaking rules and overthrowing the oppression of unimaginative convention. The problem with this attitude, besides being conventional anarchy is that it denies that there are a variety of vocabularies for expression within the broad, elastic term "artist's book." I have found that many people rely on arrogance and hype to legitimize their efforts, thus inhibiting a dialogue amongst artists and craftspeople.
I commend Peter on setting a friendly tone for this discussion, it's been enjoyable reading since the rancor has been left out of the mix.
Nicholas
From: Sally Jackson serifm@FASTLANE.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
Dear Peter,
You wrote:
>The definition for these {students} is a book is >whatever you want it to be...
Perhaps, in this situation, the question is "_Why_ is it a book?"
Sally
From: Karen Sanders karen@COMPGEN.COM
Subject: Re: Artists book
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
The most special works of art (to me) are those that use the characteristics of the media in a special way. For example one might say, only with the transparency of watercolor could the artist express xxxxxx.
Then, think of the Sistine Chapel. So much beautiful work, why couldn't he have used a more easily maintainable media?
The "bookness" uses sequencing, user interaction, the physical feel of the book. Or by denying those qualities, making us think about what a book really is.
> > Perhaps, in this situation, the question is "_Why_ is it a book?" >
Karen from Atlanta
From: CamilleEon CamilleEon@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Artists book
What I find is often the case with "book-artists" is their disdain for craftsmanship and a well-engineered book. It's as if well-made books are disqualified from being considered as an "artist's book" because the person making said object is merely a craftsperson and incapable of art.
This is a pretty sweeping and inaccurate statement. I don't think i've EVER run across a situation where someone is saying, "oh, that's too well- made to be art!" Keeping an open mind does NOT automatically cancel out an appreciation for craft or even (gulp) beauty. There ain't nothing wrong with poetry that rhymes.
BTW, I personally get around some of this mess (for those who REALLY NEED to know exactly what it is they're seeing before forming their own opinion) by calling much of my work Book Objects. And, as stretchy as they may get in their "book-ness", they are well- crafted, often employing very traditional bench technigues..
Melissa Jay Craig, Chicago
From: Charles Alexander chax@THERIVER.COM
Subject: Re: urinal and duchamp
cheers to Jennifer, and, of course, to duchamp!
charles
From: vosberg kirkhamb@CWDOM.DM
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
Perhaps the Fluxist (sp) movement would define an artists book as some thing that is involves linking together. thought - execute imaginary - tangable to be - it is. Sun's getting to me...
Colette Vosberg
From: James M Storrs storrsj@JUNO.COM
Subject: Re: what is a book definition
How about applying Justice Frankfurter's comment on pornography to artist's books: I may not have a definition, but I know one when I see one.
From: Daria dherlihy@TIAC.NET
Subject: Re: WHAT IS A BOOK???
Dear Art & All:
Sorry, but I am truly NOT skeptical about the coming electronic book. It will
evolve into something we will eventually accept just as the scroll people got
used to turning pages instead of unrolling them. We'll take our electronic book
to the beach and float around on inflatibles reading . (They wont take a dunking
any better than what we now call a REAL book.) The turning of the pages will be
quite like that of a real book and we will be able to go back and forth at the
push of a button. The advantage, supposedly, will be in having so much
information at our fingertips (while out in our boat or up in the mountains, or
sitting in our living room.) No doubt the internet and all other forms of
communication will be connected, too, and a portable printer, fax and copier (
which has already melded into one).
Look into the crystal ball: Next..........will come a little teeny weenie chip that we'll insert into a teeny weenie slot behind our ear. The little chip will contain perhaps the library of congress and we'll be able to access it at our convenience and interact with it - brain to chip. And all other forms of communication will be connected. Etc.
This is not skepticism. It's just the way things are goin' and are gonna' be. And no one loves musty, deteriorating, rag paper book dinosaurs better than I. (or is it me?)
Lilias
From: Darryl Baird darrylb@AIRMAIL.NET
Organization: http://web2.airmail.net/darrylb
Subject: Re: urinal and duchamp
A lot of Duchamp's statement(s) centers around the context of the "work of art." The rejection of high-art, privileged art, etc. and setting a urinal in a museum context was a major part of his art. He really opened up the gates wide with this foray. I'm indebted and grateful for his audacity.
-Darryl
From: Pat Baldwin patbooks@PRIMENET.COM
Subject: Re: Artist's books
Good old Justice Frankfurter!
Peter, I think you have the answer yourself. You don't need us. I'll buy yours.
Pat
From: Jennifer Vignone opus@TIAC.NET
Subject: Re: WHAT IS A BOOK???
maybe something to check out for those interested in electronic hoo-ha (some of it pretty cool).... books on CD-- "Patchwork Girl" by Shelly jackson "Califia" by MD Covekley (hope I have that right) interactive books (book-artish in keeping with the ongoing thread) AND for those with a sci-fi interest; Neal Stephenson's "A YOung Lady's Illustrated Primer" about an interactive book which adapts its story line to the first owner who opens the book (it maps the brain, don't ya know) and then the book is "acted" in by actor's in another location who swing into action when the book is oepned and the young girl needs to read or hear a story...that's a simplistic telling of the storyline, the book is quite excellent, but these are interesting ideas in the realm of the book and how it is defined.
Jennifer
From: Paul Anderson paul@GEEKY1.EBTECH.NET
Subject: Re: WHAT IS A BOOK???
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Daria wrote:
> Dear Art & All: > > Sorry, but I am truly NOT skeptical about the coming electronic book. > Bah! I'd rather be sawn asunder(for those of you that don't know what it is, look it up in a dictionary, it's pretty painful...) than dispense with the book, and I know a myriad other people that would too. Reading a computer screen just really bugs some people, and can cause a number of problems. IMHO, a fish will be elected for US presidancy before 'electronic books' become accepted. The death of the book has been proclaimed by many people, first was when radio came out, then TV, now computers. Balderdash, I say. Computers need electricity, and batteries die. Fact is, the book is a brilliant thing. It needs no power, minimal maintenance, lasts for years and is easy to produce. A computer can boast NONE of those qualities, and that's why the book will be in use for millenia in to the future. TTYL!
- --- Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac paul@geeky1.ebtech.net "With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle." FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net for info
From: Darryl Baird darrylb@AIRMAIL.NET
Organization: http://web2.airmail.net/darrylb
Subject: Re: WHAT IS A BOOK???
I saved this from a previous post here, it seems so appropriate at the moment.
*************************************************************
Announcing the new device: Built-in Orderly Organized Knowledge (BOOK.) The BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: No wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It's so easy to use even a child can operate it. Just lift its cover!
Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere-even sitting in an armchair by the fire-yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc. Here's how it works...
Each BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper (recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. These pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs in half. Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now BOOKs with more information simply use more pages. This makes them thicker and harder to carry, and has drawn some criticism from the mobile computing crowd.
Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. The BOOK may be taken up at any time and used by merely opening it. The BOOK never crashes and never needs rebooting, though like other display devices it can become unusable if dropped overboard. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish.
Many come with an "index" feature, which pinpoints the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval. An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open the BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session -even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous bookmarkers can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK.
You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with an optional programming tool, the Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus (PENCILS).
Portable, durable, and affordable, the BOOK is being hailed as the entertainment wave of the future. The BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform. Look for a flood of new titles soon.
********************************************************** (GRIN)
From: Michael Joseph mjoseph@RCI.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: urinal and duchamp I
Jennifer, You have very cleverly pasted the smile of the Mona Lisa upon Duchamp's face in your points 3-5. M.D. would be pleased, I think, but he also might point out that he rather believed the urinal deserved to be taken seriously as art, regardless of the willingness of other viewers to see it his way. He really intended to infuriate (there's another phrase for this) the materialistic minded in a rather savage way, and did inspire other younger artists, including William Wegman whose best artist's book (imho) was floating a sequence of big styrofoam commas down the Wisconsin <?> River, when he was at Madison.
Michael
On Mar 6, 11:15am, Jennifer Vignone wrote: > Subject: urinal and duchamp > In regard to the whole urinal thing...isn't the comment being made by > Duchamp putting his name on a urinal and putting it in an exhibit a > combination of: > > 1. I'm an artist and I say this is art so it is. > 2. I'm an artist, but this is just a toilet, so if I say it's art, it is. > 3. I'm an artist, but this is just a toilet, so if I say it's art, is it? > 4. I'm an artist, but this is just a toilet, will you allow me to define it > as art for you simply because I say so? > 5. This is a toilet, make up your own mind. But at least I got you to think. > > > and if this was the thought process, and he was the first to do > such a thing--he was a genius (at least I think so)...then it is art...at > least to me...because it's more than just the urninal..it is the entire > process...at least in this case...and at the time in art history when this > occurred....Art can take on many forms. > > In Duchamp's case, he himself, as an individual, was a work of art. > > just my opinion, > jennifer >-- End of excerpt from Jennifer Vignone
-- Michael Joseph Rare Book and Jerseyana Catalog Librarian Rutgers University Libraries Technical and Automated Services P.O. Box 1350 Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1350 voice: 732-445-5904 email: mjoseph@rci.rutgers.edu fax : 732-445-5888 URL: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mjoseph
From: yara ferreira cluver ycluver@INDIANA.EDU
Subject: Re: Artists book
I feel I must write in defense of those BSO's (book-shaped objects), since I make them. My definition of not just the artists book, but book in general is an object which contains. It begins in one form and through the manipulation of the viewer/reader takes on another form. In other words, the object undergoes a physical transformation when someone attempts to "read" it. Since this definition could include many things which I would not consider a book, I would also have to include in this that it has to do with intention (on the part of the maker and the viewer). Is the viewer approaching the object with the intention of "reading" it? But then, we may have to get into a discussion about the definition of "reading". I'll conclude by saying that what one might think of as a book, or an artist's book, another might not, based on intention.
Yara Cluver (Bloomington, IN).
From: Barbara Coddington bdc@cs.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Artists' Books
Can the list tolerate another opinion on artists' books? Hope so.
When the book form itself becomes a part of the artist's expression, it's an artist's book. It's more than just a mat and frame on a piece of art. A great painting with a lousy frame is still a great painting, whereas an artist's book is all of a piece -- you probably can't separate the art from the frame. The entire thing must work as a whole. Fine prints in a shoddy or thoughtless binding/box/whatever are more like the great painting in a bad frame -- separable. My brother in law did a uni project that contained some of his photographs and some wonderful writing, and he stuck it in a crap binding, and his instructor called him on it, rightfully, I think.
When you bind something (or box it, or imply book form), you are either encasing it in something that is a sort of frame, in which case it should adequately "support" the contents, or you are encasing it in something that relates to and with the contents; they're interdependent. In which case it should at least meet the standards of the art. So I would say that good craftsmanship must play a part.
I guess if you were to apply this idea to something like the example given earlier in the list, dead branches with paper hanging from them, you'd have to ask yourself whether the papers would have the same meaning without the branches. Likewise, a collection of text and images (for example) in a beautiful but otherwise unrelated binding -- is it a book of art or an artists' book? I'd call it the former.
I'm sure there's a gaping hole in my logic and someone's about to drive a humvee through it, but, well... that's why we're here, I guess!
Barb
From: leil lucy alexander leilx@OLYMPUS.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
I agree with Nicholas, who said the first paragraph. I know from experience that it is not _all_ book artists as there are many who care deeply about the craft aspect, but I also think that what Nicholas said is just a general feeling which abounds in some circles which seem to be very dominant. as a student of both the craft and the art, we had many artists in to talk to us and I found it a frequent (and depressing) attitude. however, it is not all the artists!! I think that generalizations have a place, as long as it is understood there are lots of exceptions.
I do not like the solution of book object for myself because I find it tends to take away from the intimacy and concept of a book. an object is to be looked at, not read, interacted with, held and touched and handled. not always, obviously, but I find people have a very scared attitude to what is perceived as Art (whatever that is). whereas if it is on the level of a book, a common object which we all handle, people might be more adventurous (?) about interacting with it. my interest in this art form is the intimacy and privacy and secretivness of it, even big, open books.
leil
>What I find is often the case with "book-artists" is their disdain for >craftsmanship and a well-engineered book. It's as if well-made books are >disqualified from being considered as an "artist's book" because the person >making said object is merely a craftsperson and incapable of art. > >This is a pretty sweeping and inaccurate statement. I don't think i've EVE= R >run across a situation where someone is saying, "oh, that's too well- made = to >be art!" >Keeping an open mind does NOT automatically cancel out an appreciation for >craft or even (gulp) beauty. There ain't nothing wrong with poetry that >rhymes. > >BTW, I personally get around some of this mess (for those who REALLY NEED t= o >know exactly what it is they're seeing before forming their own opinion) by >calling much of my work Book Objects. And, as stretchy as they may get in >their "book-ness", they are well- crafted, often employing very traditional >bench technigues.. > >Melissa Jay Craig, Chicago
From: Paul Anderson paul@GEEKY1.EBTECH.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, yara ferreira cluver wrote:
> I feel I must write in defense of those BSO's (book-shaped objects), since > I make them. My definition of not just the artists book, but book in > general is an object which contains. > The definition of what a book is is simple: A book consists of a number of peice of paper sewn together, and bound with a cover. That, my friends is a book. A scroll is not a book. It is a scroll. Nor are commas floating down a river. A number of things have been called books, which aren't books. It's like calling a fish a pen - they have no similarities beyond common shape. A chiseled stone is not a book, not until you bind a number of them together in the form of pages. Sorry, that's the facts. TTYL!
- --- Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac paul@geeky1.ebtech.net "With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle." FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net for info
From: Daria dherlihy@TIAC.NET
Subject: Re: WHAT IS A BOOK???
Dear Paul Anderson: I truly believe that I will always prefer a paper book to an electronic book, too, as will most of my friends and probably most on the Book List.....but children are very comfortable with the new media, and the prices of books keep going up, and the cost of memory devices and chips keep coming down, and children keep growing up.
We will see.....
Meanwhile, keep bookin'
Lilias
From: Duncan Campbell dmc@MINN.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
>The definition of what a book is is simple: >A book consists of a number of peice of paper sewn together, and bound >with a cover. >That, my friends is a book. A scroll is not a book. It is a scroll. Nor >are commas floating down a river. A number of things have been called >books, which aren't books. It's like calling a fish a pen - they have no >similarities beyond common shape. A chiseled stone is not a book, not >until you bind a number of them together in the form of pages. Sorry, >that's the facts. TTYL! > > > >- --- >Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac >paul@geeky1.ebtech.net >"With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle." >FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net for info > >
Paul you might want to expand your definition to include **all** methods of page attachment including Spiral, Wire-O, Post, Perfect, and Double Fan Adhesive Binding to name just a few that do not involve sewing.
***************************************************
A fool commanding an army is still a fool.
Nacnud dmc@minn.net
***************************************************
From: charles alexander chax@THERIVER.COM
Subject: Re: Artists book
>The definition of what a book is is simple: >A book consists of a number of peice of paper sewn together, and bound >with a cover. >That, my friends is a book.
Well, here is where it's likely to get more rancorous, or, at least, I find this definition wants to establish a kind of statute, which I don't think is needed. Just as a poem today is not quite what it was 500 years ago (or not necessarily), and 'art' in general has expanded to include what artists have made -- even grammar has had its changes, and linguists like to speak of "descriptive" linguistics rather than "prescriptive" linguistics; I would hope that "book" could adapt its definition over time to take in more than what conforms to what this post suggests.
charles
From: noway noway@SLIP.NET
Subject: quick anecdote about electronic artists books
I thought I'd say something about "electronic artists books" since that category has all *three* points of contention.
Last year, an artist-writer and a philosopher made a CD-ROM and called it an artists book. Apparently, it's so because then a museum published it and a big University press released it.
Since I'm one of those two crooks (the artist-writer), the recent debate on this list is pretty amusing. I mean, after the CD-ROM was done, I went out and got a press and started laying down type.
There is no trajectory as to what must happen in the future of books, nor are there absolute boundaries in art.
Personally, I feel that when I can put a small animation on a piece of paper or play a sound at the turn of a page, there won't be a need for CD-ROMs -- far cheaper to produce than die-cut jobs and offset printing, btw. It's also good to consider that books are often made to *communicate with other people.* I chose a CD-ROM over a more precious book form because I wanted to reach a large number of people, affordably, *and* I wanted to force people to use their computer for something else than looking at sports stats, stock reports, psycho gunmen games and porn.
If I were a traditional book maker, I wouldn't lose any sleep about artists' books or electronic books as these will continue to take place on the margins of your beautiful and meaningful craft.
Worry about movies and Barnes & Nobles.
Thanks, Jose
From: QUEERBOOKS QUEERBOOKS@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Book Objects
Just to give another point of view, for me the ultimate "book object" is a book so finely bound and so impeccably printed that it is too intimidating to be picked up and read. I also include as book objects those books where the quality of the binding is way out of proportion to the quality of the printing and the quality of the text.
The most disturbing book I've ever seen was a copy of "Billy Budd" with an intricately crafted brass cover. The collector who owned the copy proudly told me that the book could never be touched by the human hand because the oils from the skin would permanently damage the finish. White gloves, please!
I'm not saying that this binding is bad or wrong. For me, it is just sad. Imagine a book that can never be touched by human hands! What word do you use to describe impeding the essential nature of a book: the ability to share information? If we were talking about humans, the term would be "dehumanizing".
I've had wonderful opportunities to see, and in many cases handle, priceless, exquisite books. I've marveled at their beauty. Still, there is something unsettling about these books that are, to my mind, too well-crafted for their own good. Is a book still a book if no one reads it? Of course, it is. But I don't think it hurts to ask the question.
Personally, I like my books well-used, the pages thumb-worn, and the covers dog- eared. I like my books appealing, compelling, and well-handled. There's a reason books get worn out--people like ‘em! They are my kind of books.
Ed (Hutchins)
From: Jennifer Marie Gorman jmgorman@IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book
This definition of a artist's book is far off the mark for many artist's book which I have seen. There may or may not be an assemblage of folios, or the book may not be bound in the traditional sense. Artist's books are not always meant to be observed in a sequential fashion either. One perfect example of an artist's book which contradicts the definition you give in every sense is the work entitled "Bound Book" and please forgive me I do not know the artist. This artist's book is quite literally what it sounds to be, and is also quite clever. It is a large book, (the size of a very large dictionary) anyway the book itself is "bound" by a thick rope that has been wrapped and tied around the outside of the book, then the whole thing was painted with black and yellow paint. This book is not viewable at all in sequential fashion, nor is there even any visible or pictorial text.
I feel what people struggle with when defining what an artist's book is, is the connotation of the term "book". I have seen many artist's books that aren't technically "books". So then here we are again with the question of what are artists books?
Peter maybe you should send students on their own quest to answer this enigmatic question? From a fellow art historian, I know one thing we are all good at is agreeing to disagree. The question of artist's books is one that thoroughly perplexes me also, so i will refrain from trying to define it myself. One thing I do know is that I enjoy artist's books because they never cease to amaze me in their diversity.
Thanks,
Jen
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Michael Babcock wrote:
> How about: > > An "artist book" is an assemblage of folios, bound or otherwise, meant > to be observed in a sequential fashion, either arbitrary or = > predetirmined, > and comprised of elements both textual, or pictorial. Construction is > often of an importance equal to that of content. Modes of reproduction > are variable, as are methods of construction. > > Or something like that. > What do I know, I'm a designer/job printer? > > michael bABCock > interrobang letterpress >
From: Richard Minsky minsky@MINSKY.COM
Subject: Bound Book
>One perfect example of an artist's book which contradicts the definition you give in every sense is the work entitled "Bound Book" and please forgive me I do not know the artist.<
I've seen about a half dozen of these over the years, but I believe the first is by Barton Lidice Benes, who did several of them around 1973. The Center for Book Arts owns one that is yellow, and I included it in the exhibit "Book Arts in the USA" in 1990. CBA first exhibited one of them in the one man show of Benes' works at the Center in 1975, along with several of his other sculptural bookworks (travel book on wheels, etc.) and his "Book of The Dead" wich was made with the ashes of Hans Schneider. A similar book of his, "When I Lived in Salem", was in the Center for Book Arts exhibit at the Creative Arts Workshop in New Haven in 1976, and was the poster for the exhibit. The book was "bound" in rope, gessoed and painted, and also included a pair of painted eyeglasses with razor blades on the inside of the lenses, which also were painted.
Photos of two of the "bound books", are reproduced in the January-February issue of "Arts & Metiers du Livre," in a pull-out special section that is a Guide to New York.
Richard http://minsky.com
From: Sam Lanham slanham@HCTC.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book
In an number of places in this long thread I've seen the statement that an artist's book is a book made by an artist. Or, a book is an artist's book if the artist says it it, or intends it to be.
Then how do we identify an "artist" so we can know that that person's books are artist's books? What are the characteristics which permit me to point and say "There goes one now"?
Sam Lanham Sam Lanham (slanham@hctc.net)
From: Paul Anderson paul@GEEKY1.EBTECH.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Duncan Campbell wrote:
> > > Paul you might want to expand your definition to include **all** methods > of page attachment including Spiral, Wire-O, Post, Perfect, and Double Fan > Adhesive Binding to name just a few that do not involve sewing. > Oops... Brain misfired. Sorry, TTYL!
- --- Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac paul@geeky1.ebtech.net "With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle." FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net for info
From: Paul Anderson paul@GEEKY1.EBTECH.NET
Subject: Re: Book Objects
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, QUEERBOOKS wrote:
> > The most disturbing book I've ever seen was a copy of "Billy Budd" with an > intricately crafted brass cover. The collector who owned the copy proudly > told me that the book could never be touched by the human hand because the > oils from the skin would permanently damage the finish. White gloves, please! > If you cover it with some lacquer to protect it, you can lick the thing if you want without harming it. The oils from the skin do attack the brass if it's not coated WITH some transparent chemical, and it eventually develops a deep, and IMHO, aesthetically pleasing brown colour. It always occurs evenly, (unless it hits something particularily bad in one spot) and looks quite nice. TTYL!
- --- Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac paul@geeky1.ebtech.net "With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle." FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net for info
From: Paul Anderson paul@GEEKY1.EBTECH.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, charles alexander wrote:
> I > would hope that "book" could adapt its definition over time to take in more > than what conforms to what this post suggests. > An illustration, if you will - Take the word 'painting'. Everyone here knows what a painting is, right? Would you call art drawn on a computer then printed with a laser printer a painting? No, you wouldn't, because it wasn't painted. It was drawn, then it was printed. Same thing goes for a car - who here calls a moped a car? No one, methinks. Cars are enclosed and usually larger than mopeds. Therefore, the same thing applies to a book. A sheet of paper hung from a twig is not a book, it does not have pages, nor are they bound with a cover. Same difference. If you start to blur the definition of everything, you completely destroy the language. Language is about specifics, not vagueness. TTYL!
- --- Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac paul@geeky1.ebtech.net "With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle." FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net for info
From: Paul Anderson paul@GEEKY1.EBTECH.NET
Subject: Re: WHAT IS A BOOK???
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Daria wrote:
> and > the prices of books keep going up, and the cost of memory devices and chips > keep coming down, and children keep growing up. > I don't know about the price of books going up... It's stayed pretty steady - it's the value of the dollar that's gone up. Computers are also going to hit a plateua in the coming months when memory CAN'T get any cheaper, nor can processors. The massive price sways of the early nineties(sometimes prices of parts would drop more than $400 in a week!), have begun to settle, and before long it'll stop. It has to, no one short of IBM, MS and Intel is making any money off of computers. Businesses may even begin to raise the prices. I run a small computer business, and on each sale of a computer we make about $100, sometimes less. Intel, however, IIRC has over a 100% markup(that's 100% of the cost). Meaning if you buy a $100 processor from them, they pocket $50. Anyways, you can't change the fact that computers need electricity, and even though books take a dunk poorly, they sure take it better than a CD-ROM drive. TTYL!
- --- Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac paul@geeky1.ebtech.net "With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle." FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net for info
From: Linda Richards scribe@SMARTYPANTS.NET
Subject: Re: Book Objects
QUEERBOOKS wrote:
> Personally, I like my books well-used, the pages thumb-worn, and the co= vers > dog- eared. I like my books appealing, compelling, and well-handled. = There's > a reason books get worn out--people like =91em! They are my kind of bo= oks.
I interviewed Robert Fulghum a while ago and he said much the same thing. He said he still has his first copy of Walden: he keeps it on his desk where he can see it, though this copy is now retired from camping trips: too fragile and special to him to risk further accident.
The pages, he said, are underlined and written on. And he's pressed keepsakes that have meaning to him between the pages: feathers and leaves and other things found on his trips. Dirt stains and even a bit of grease: some of these makes are circled and dated and marked by the date of the contribution.
In a very general way, I guess I'm not an advocate of people banging their books around. It goes against too much that is essentially me. However, there was something in the way he spoke of his Walden that was so special: the book has become a touchstone in his life and was shared with special friends in special places. That sort of volume transcends even the "book" label and becomes almost a friend.
A u t h o r & J o u r n a l i s t http://www.smartypants.net Editor, January Magazine http://www.januarymagazine.com
From: Richard Minsky minsky@MINSKY.COM
Subject: Nomenclature
For those who have joined the list since August, 1994, I refer to my introduction to the catalog of the exhibition I curated in 1990, "Book Arts in the USA", in which I establish a nomenclature for differentiaton of various book arts fields, including "artists' books." Peter Verheyen posted the entire text of this to the list on August 31, 1994, and it can be found in the Book_Arts-l archive at:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/bookarts/1994/08/msg00037.html
Richard http://minsky.com
From: Edith Abeyta mindmatr@teleport.com
Organization: Mind Over Matter
Subject: Re: Artists book
The idea of what is a painting has and is being challenged. Edith
From: CamilleEon CamilleEon@AOL.COM
Subject: Bomb #2
Well, now that the list is getting quiet again:
What about artists' books which are altered books - individual pieces and /or sculptural forms made from books? They started out as books, are they still?
(running for cover, where I can watch) Melissa Jay Craig, Chicago
From: Nicholas Yeager artifex@PIPELINE.COM
Subject: Re: Artists book
Paul Anderson wrote: >The definition of what a book is is simple: >A book consists of a number of peice of paper sewn together, and bound >with a cover. >That, my friends is a book. A scroll is not a book. It is a scroll.
I think you'll find that you've described a codex, which is the form of the book that the western world has used since around the time of the calendar change. We can thank those Christian marketers of the early centuries of the Common Era, for repackaging the "books" that contained their religious writings. Our word for book refers to the amount of text that could easily fit on a scroll. A scroll *is* a book. That's why biblical chapters are called books. There were even earlier forms of the "book;" but who cares, that's so long ago that when people make those kinds of books today, they are called artist's books. ;-)
Nicholas
Nicholas G. Yeager 51 Warren St.#2 NY, NY 10007 212.346.9609 artifex@pipeline.com
From: Seth jubal33@IDT.NET
Subject: Re: Artists book
Actually, if we are going to get specific, the word "codex" in Latin is a later form of "caudex", that is, the interior bark of trees, particularly the beech (remember that tree), which was one of the materials used for writing in Rome and elsewhere. The physical form of the codex is derived from the diptych, two wooden boards, one of which was coated with resin, on which personal notes were usually kept (especially in the merchant classes).
The word "book" is of Germanic origin, and is kin to modern German "buch", meaning book, but, lo and behold, also "beech tree", therefore belying its use in the codex form. As to the meaning of "book" as in "book of the Bible", this is simply the translation of the Latin "liber" (as in "liber Exodi", translated at a time when the codex, not the scroll, was of normative use in Europe.
SJ
From: J Laflamme arslibri@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: urinal and duchamp / artist's book
There are some problems I have on theoretical as well as practical level with the concept of an artist's book. I am a professional hand bookbinder, skilfull and knowledgable when comes to different structure of a book. I am also a designer, rarely producing in my studio two the same bindings, very strongly emphasizing the esthetic, artistic, intellectual and structural aspects of books that come from my studio. Learning the trade (purposefully I avoid the term craft because of its negative connotation) of hand bookbinding is a very long process requireing knowledge of tools, materials, chemistry of leather, paper, binding techniques, etc. So, once again, binding that I call an art must have: proper, sound structure and design apealing both esthetically and intellectualy . Strong knowledge about the technique of bookbinding allows to experiment with the structure so it can be an integral part of the design. What bothers me very often is that being by profession a bookbinder and incorporating all mentioned above principles of a good design in my work, by a great number of people my books will be perceived as simply bindings. Why? When we , bookbinders have an exhibition of our work it is simply an exhibition of bookbinding. When an artist in general exhibits her/his work, even when pages are held together by a ring binder the work is called an "artist's book". To be perfectly clear - their work is often an art and carries a strong message. I feel however that the part "book" should be dropped out. For me the bookness that Peter wrote about is a very strong element when it comes to bindings. When only expression is the most important factor, why to bother with all the binding stuff? We can use the services of commercial binderies if we need to bind some pages and leave the work of art to the artist. But maybe being so intimidated by the term "artist's book" we do not have in some cases the courage simply to say that the king is naked, that "the thing" only RESAMBLES a book. The term also misleads artists themselves. A few times I had people comming to my studio for a job with a resume of a "book artist". When asked whether they can execute flexible binding or work with leather the answer was simply "no". How for goodness sake the came up with the name of an "book artist" for what they were doing? Their illustrations were good, some even very good, sculptured paper forms also, but from that to a book is a very long way that they often are not willing and interested to take. The knowledge of structure would teach them some humility and respect toward a BOOK. To some of you who by now probably think that I only make traditional square or ractangular books I have to say that you are mistaken. My knowledge about traditional binding techniques enables me to work on experimental yet sound structures. Even Picasso did not start form painting cubic forms. First he studied the techniques of old masters, and then having all the NECESSARY knowledge he started to experiment with his own visions. Some of you might ask why I write about those things (and probably got tired of my English :-)), Peter just asked for our definition. Every definition however has its practical implications that we have to be aware of. Never before I came to Canada, country without practically any university or apprentice program in bookbinding and book conservation I met so many people calling themselves "book artist". While talking to them about their education in the field, I heard about weekend courses here or five days course there. It is terrifying to me not because making "artist's book" is their hobby but because they take commissions for bindings and produce books, nice looking at the first glance, but breaking in half when opened. It is like being an " artist " freed them from any structure. Being an artist does not mean an absolute freedom. Certain freedom comes from knowledge and skill, and it is true when itcomes to design as well as a book structure. It is a painful and long process to grow to and even then very challenging. As Nitzche said in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is not important what is one freed from but what is he freed to. (:-)) The word "artist" sometimes covers simply lack of skills and knowledge. Like Jack Thompson wrote in his posting pieces of paper hanging from a tree maybe an interesting concept but it does not make it neither art nor bookbinding. Duchamp's urinal could be perceived as a new and challenging concept, but only once, and only when he did it. All other urinals after Duchamp are and will be ONLY urinals (unless designed by Brancusi:-)). Repeatetiveness of ideas is a mediocre and pitiful procedure, but unfortunately very common. By the way, who has the right to say "I am the artist so I say it is THE ART"? For all this, and many other reasons, that many of you could probably come up with, I think that a discussion about the ART OF A BOOK should be held first before discussing "artist's book".
KSenia Kopystynska
From: "Peter D. Verheyen" verheyen@philobiblon.com
Subject: Re: Bomb #2
Back to Duchamp. Are his stool, bicycle fork and wheel, still just that, or are they now a piece of sculpture. If they still exhibit the appropriate bookness, as in the case of Tom Philips' Humament or Dante's Inferno, yes they are still books. If they become wall objects or sculptures, they're BSOs. NOTE: this is not a qualitative statement, merely a fact (IMHO). ;>
Peter
At 10:32 PM 3/8/98 EST, you wrote: >Well, now that the list is getting quiet again: > >What about artists' books which are altered books - individual pieces and /or >sculptural forms made from books? They started out as books, are they still? > >(running for cover, where I can watch) >Melissa Jay Craig, Chicago > >
>> In schoen gebunden Buechern blaettert man gern. <<
Peter D. Verheyen <wk> 315.443.9937 <fax> 315.443.9510 <Email>
mailto:verheyen@philobiblon.com
<Webmaster> http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey
<Listowner> mailto:Book_Arts-L-request@listserv.syr.edu
From: Richard Miller rmiller@PETERBORO.NET
Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book
Sam Lanham asks:
>Then how do we identify an "artist" so we can know that that person's books >are artist's books? What are the characteristics which permit me to point >and say "There goes one now"?
