[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: philosophy of bookbinding
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: philosophy of bookbinding
- From: Derek Lyons <elde@HURRICANE.NET>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 00:16:06 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <199810051711.KAA18097@wind.hurricane.net>
- Message-Id: <199810060416.VAA22058@SUL-Server-2.stanford.edu>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
My statement was intented to convey that books are intended to be handled.
(Interacted with both manually and intellectually, as Dorothy pointed out.
A piece of sculpture is intended to be be simply viewed, not touched. And
there is a *big* grey area between the two extremes.
At 01:11 PM 10/5/98 -0400, Janet L. Maher wrote:
> We had another thread about this going several months back, should be
>in the archives. Only to add my 2c that yes, some books, bookworks,
>artists books may look like sculpture. I agree that in some cases they
>remain purely sculpture and shouldn't be considered a book. However, some
>must be "read", manipulated, are inherently sequential, and visually,
>textually or concepturally narrative, and do indeed have literal or
>metaphorical references to traditional book structure (reaching back to
>the earliest days of bookmaking). In the realm of artists books,
>some of these, I believe, are among the most intriguing and engaging.
>These days in the art world all categories are cross-pollinating and
>there's no end in sight.
>> You've hit a nail on the head here.... Your statements here neatly show
>> the difference between a book and a piece of sculpture that is meant to be
>> viewed. (The latter often miscalled an 'artists book'.)
>> Derek L.