[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unique Books?
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Unique Books?
- From: Charles Mohr <livres@ANET.NET>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:46:10 -0800
- Message-Id: <199902020444.UAA13540@palimpsest.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
From: Rizio Bruno Sant'Ana <rbruno@INTERNETCOM.COM.BR>
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Unique Books?
>If the book is printed, you can say it's the only "copy", but even if it's
>"unique", a copy is a copy.
>I think that a "unique" book is more an artifact, handmade, and made only
>once, as a manuscript.
>Of course a print can be a monoprint, but allways has to be a matrix,
>it is destroyed.
>Rizio Bruno Sant'Ana
>Biblioteca Mario de Andrade
>Rua da Consolacao, 94
>01302-000 - Sao Paulo - Brazil
Depends, if one - as I have done it - prints books, but only one copy
(1986 "Zen" 18 x 36", printed letterpress, one copy total, type
redistributed after print) or more than one copy - but clearly marked so
(Mexico by Ingo Cesaro, letterpress, printed on verso cover :
"One of 2 copies") than it is quite clear even to a simple minded person,
how many copies are floating around.
I would not like to see a restriction of unique (1) copy books to monoprint
and other techniques. All technology should be usable, it is just utterly
important to mark clearly how many copies total have been made.