[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
- From: Richard Miller <rmiller@PETERBORO.NET>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:35:11 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <199803051619.LAA28937@mail.peterboro.net>
- Message-Id: <199803060043.QAA14440@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <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
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.
Richard Miller <email@example.com>
The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild website: