[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
- From: Angela Moll <am45@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:07:13 -0500
- In-reply-to: <199803050516.AAA23231@cornell.edu>
- Message-id: <199803050617.WAA16460@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
What about a book which is itself the thing to be communicated, not a
support for conveying something other than itself. Even though it may seem
to be just a rewording of the term to be defined, I do feel important to
stress the fact that in an artist-book the book is the art, not just a
possible enabling factor for time delayed (mass)communication.
>Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:08:07 -0500
>From: Peter Verheyen <pdverhey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>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>