[Table of Contents] [Search]

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

Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)

Though I hate the notion of a definition, since by defining what an
artist's book is,
may lead to excluding SOMETHING which, upon reading the definition, would
work to eliminate SOMEONE who
would have perhaps made an artist's book (or books) which would have been
an enriching and tremendous addition to the realm of art itself, not just
artist's books...that said, what drew me to making books and leaving
traditional painting (to reincorporate painting and everything else) behind
was the magic of the book...the exploration of the structure, the surprise
a book has to offer--in its traditional sense--and in its redefined (by an
artist, or not just artists) manifestation. Artist's books are little
worlds--secrets almost--even when they are huge in structure--they are
intimate and bold--and possess the ability to incorporate so many different
forms of media in a uniquely revisited way.

Having said that, I realize how hard it is to define, and I would rather
just say I make them, whatever they are, and however they evolve.



>We've had this debate before, but I'd like to pose this question again.
>Why, do I want to do this to myself again, well I'm giving a presentation
>to an Art History class on "artists books" and people have been clamoring
>for a definition.
>What I'd like is for people to think about this subject and submit a
>concise (1 paragraph) definition. I'll select a few of these and put them
>into a handout. If there's enough interest I may put them together as a
>web file and post on the Book Arts Web.
>Thanks for your help.
>Peter Verheyen, Listowner: Book_Arts-L
>315.443.9937 <wk> 315.443.9510 <fax>

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