[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Artists book
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Artists book
- From: charles alexander <chax@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:27:57 -0700
- In-reply-to: <199803081153.EAA08221@pantano.theriver.com>
- Message-id: <199803081634.IAA16898@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>The definition of what a book is is simple:
>A book consists of a number of peice of paper sewn together, and bound
>with a cover.
>That, my friends is a book.
Well, here is where it's likely to get more rancorous, or, at least, I find
this definition wants to establish a kind of statute, which I don't think
is needed. Just as a poem today is not quite what it was 500 years ago (or
not necessarily), and 'art' in general has expanded to include what artists
have made -- even grammar has had its changes, and linguists like to speak
of "descriptive" linguistics rather than "prescriptive" linguistics; I
would hope that "book" could adapt its definition over time to take in more
than what conforms to what this post suggests.