[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [BKARTS] Books without Words



There was a time when art was not defined as such. Can we say the same
for words and text?

A scroll was a "book" once, I guess.

-=j


On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 03:09 PM, Michael Andrews wrote:


. . .
So, even if you imagine that you are producing art that expresses a
revolutionary new literacy, or is somehow manipulating metaphor beyond
language, then you ought, at least, to have some respect for language,
word
and content, since all such art ultimately falls back upon it.

It is far easier to grasp the definition of art that is expressly not
based
on word and thought,
if it simply allowed the inclusion and validity language and thought
within
its great transcendental cosmos, rather excluding the very modes of
expression needed to explain and justify such art in the first place.

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Haefner" <webgrrrl@xxxxxxx>
My sense is that we are reducing the term book to a structure (or a
term). Which, to me, is like defining a sentence by its syntax only (a
lot of commas in this one).

Or is it part of a genus...like tree (out of my area here)?

If an artwork is defined only by it's medium, why do artists become
famous?

So who will write the new text-book?

Jean

*********************************************** See the Book_Arts-L FAQ at: <http://www.philobiblon.com>

    *Postings may not be re-printed in any form without the express
    consent of the author - Please respect their contributions & ©*

       Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine
                   <http://palimpsest.stanford.edu>
            ***********************************************


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]