[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cute but stupid
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Cute but stupid
- From: Charles Alexander <chax@THERIVER.COM>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:10:48 -0700
- Message-Id: <199703250011.QAA20527@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>If I'm not mistaken, I was the first to curate an inclusive exhibit of Book
Art, and to create an organization which made inclusion of all forms of Book
Art its mission. (In case any new subscribers don't know about this, I am
the Founder of the Center for Book Arts (1974), which provides training and
workshops in traditional book crafts and has mounted over 140 exhibits which
have included work which is historical, traditional, contemporary,
international, multicultural, sculptural, and many other adjectives).
Yes, you're probably right, Richard. What was this first exhibition? when
was it? what were its parameters? did it include work in all the areas
above? how was such work chosen? was it an invitational? was it open to
submission? I'm interested personally in tracing some of the early history
of book arts exhibitions.
You said, "Sloppy thinking is to philosophy what sloppy craft is to art."
It's also possible, though, to make art with no craft at all -- in a way,
that's what conceptual artists have done. In many of the Fluxus
publications, I believe, there is no or little craft (but certainly not in
all) -- yet some of them are effective as art nonetheless.
The only thing I worry about with such statements about "sloppy thinking,"
is that sometimes, in philosophy, and in art, breakthrough thinking, or
breakthrough imaginative acts, don't take the form of what, up to that
point, has been considered to be appropriate thinking or appropriate craft.
Some, historically, have therefore dismissed such work, based on thinking
which simply did not allow for such breakthroughs. So we must be careful
about this, careful to seek rigor in our craft, in our thinking, but not to
think that our sense of rigor must frame what is possible and what is
considered to have value.