[Table of Contents] [Search]


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

[BKARTS] tangled threads



>>Looking forward to the comments of others<< A.

As the perpetrator of the current angst in "boo and thought" (oh
Richard, I just wrote that, and because of you, decided to let it stay,
;-} serendipity at the fore) er, ummm, I mean "book and thought" I have
been perplexed how what I meant in words could have rippled so far from
my intent. Indeed, it will, no doubt, be a case of my lack of clarity
rather than the words themselves. 

But I have learned from and appreciated the comments of most!

>>I don't know if "thought" is always involved in the creative process.
I rely more on inspiration and serendipity.<< Richard

>>The nature of metaphor is finding a way to communicate notions that
transcend words, for which words have not yet been invented<< Richard

>>So, the question becomes, what are we doing to foster this new
literacy?<< Roberta

>>Nothing, not a word not an image, nor even a color means exactly the
same to me as it does to you. Perception is altered by experience and
belief, not to mention the health of one's brain and nerve cells.<<
Celia

>>It would be pleasant to see some form of manifesto the defines the
book as something altogether different, as a magical object perhaps.<<
Michael

But the nugget of my concern is represented more closely below by Paul:

>>The Times's reviewers sometimes (frequently? often? usually?) miss the
point of a non-fine art show. Indeed, it's a common complaint among New
York curators and librarians outside the art museums that the Times
doesn't review any exhibition that isn't an art show.  That's not
strictly true, but it's broadly true: exhibitions on history,
literature, science or other topics very rarely receive in-depth
coverage. So it should come as no surprise that "Ninety for the
Nineties" is characterized as being primarily about book objects, rather
than for the 80-or so 'bookish' books. Heck, at least the show has been
reviewed!<<

It was my hope to elevate the Times' reviewers appreciation for the
forum. I was not trying to stick a wedge between books with words and
books without words. But because the public appreciates books in their
traditional format, (and Franks falls into this category) I was positing
the idea that we as artist book makers have a job in front of us which
Roberta states clearly: we need to find a way to foster this new
literacy. And I would like to work toward finding a way to have shows
reviewed without the ending sentence of "at least we are all having
fun."

A.

             ***********************************************
        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]