[Table of Contents] [Search]


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

Re: [BKARTS] hotbed skins



The 'morals of materials' in book making is interesting.

Of course, this thread is interesting when talking about making any object.
However, we are discusing books here, all because we know they are so
important to our moral and intellectual histories, to our sociology of
knowledge.

The ban or prohibitation of materials - in most instances - stems from such
moral discussions as these.

I am all in favour of balanced arguments/views with regard to this topic(s)
as I believe good and equally poorly put viewpoints spread, influencing
others, and would suggest that well balanced arguments have a definate
advantage, over the bad, of influencing others views.
 anyway....I agree with matthew :)
 I do not want to distract this List away from the practicalities of
bookbinding/making etc., what ever the skin, dung or roo used, so I
apologise in advance for the persons not really wanting a moral discussion
of materials in their mail.
 anyway, thanks for the dung paper info matthew...but I won't say I will be
out with a bucket and spade papermaking this weekend :)
 regards to all
Paul

 On 10/12/05, Matthew Garelick <mgarelick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> kattalina kazunas wrote:
>
> >It is interesting to consider that Native Americans
> >used animals hides and skins and bones, for clothing,
> >shelter, tools, food, and so forth. The difference
> >was, they killed the animals with a degree of
> >"respect" (for lack of a better word), AND, they also
> >used every inch of the animal's parts, and were not
> >wasteful.
> >
> Well, um, I have a quibble with this. PLEASE do not regard this as a
> flame . . . this is a topic that, in general, I am interested in, not
> consumed by.
>
> My response is this: Native Americans killed animals and used all their
> parts because they had no choice. Their frugality was due more to the
> need to survive than any questionable moral opposition to waste. And the
> "killing with respect" thing has always seemed a little threadbare to
> me. It seems like something meant more to console the hunter
> (understandable) or his audience (just plain silly), than anything
> likely to make the dead animal feel better. Speaking personally, if
> someone kills me, I don't really care what their attitude was about it.
>
> Having said all that, I have no objection to using animal skins for
> binding. I am more concerned, *much* more concerned, with how the animal
> was raised and butchered than that they were killed for our use. I do
> agree with Kattalina that no other material can aesthetically match
> leather as a binding, too.
>
> By the way, I have heard, and want to believe, that there is a book
> bound in human skin in the collection of the Boston Athenaeum.
>
> As always, fascinated by what happens on this list,
> Matthew
>
> --
> Matthew Garelick
> www.mattthehat.com <http://www.mattthehat.com>
>
> ***********************************************
>
> For all your subscription questions, go to the
> Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
>
> See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
> ***********************************************
>



--
Paul Bettinson
http://ncfab.org
Postboks 4703 Sofienberg
0506 Oslo
Norway
Tel: 0047 99534993

             ***********************************************
                                    
             For all your subscription questions, go to the
                      Book_Arts-L FAQ and Archive.
                                    
          See <http://www.philobiblon.com> for full information
             ***********************************************


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