[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Oh dear
- From: Jennifer Gorman <jenng@US.IBM.COM>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:14:24 -0500
- Message-Id: <199803110222.SAA23064@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>What makes you certain that what you observed were "artist's books"?
>>Because someone said it was? Who said so? The "Artist"? A curator? =
What makes you assume that the artist's books I've seen have been in artist's
studios or on display in a museum? Actually all of the artists books I have
seen are in "Libraries", you know those big buildings that hold "Books". If
you have a problem with the Library of Congress catologing system you can take
it up with them, it's not my fault nor anybody's else's that they don't adhear
to your narrow defintion "bound or otherwise" of what an artist book is or is
>>well,... you're lame.
Whether I'm lame or not is not the topic, I understand you don't agree with me
on this subject, but please refrain from the personal digs.
>>One perfect example of an artist's book which contradicts the =
>>you give in every sense is the work entitled "Bound Book"..."bound" by =
>>thick rope that has been wrapped and tied around the outside of the =
>blah, blah, blah.
>What you refer to is a wry commentary on what people commonly believe a =
>to be, as well as a visual pun in sculptural form. It is not an "artist's =
Well, you're wrong, it is an artist's book. You don't have to like it, but
dont' try and classify it as something else.