[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: Paul Anderson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 14:25:47 -0500
- In-reply-to: <199803081640.LAA24174@bootes.ebtech.net>
- Message-id: <199803081953.LAA16904@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, charles alexander wrote:
> would hope that "book" could adapt its definition over time to take in more
> than what conforms to what this post suggests.
An illustration, if you will -
Take the word 'painting'. Everyone here knows what a painting is, right?
Would you call art drawn on a computer then printed with a laser printer a
painting? No, you wouldn't, because it wasn't painted. It was drawn,
then it was printed. Same thing goes for a car - who here calls a moped a
car? No one, methinks. Cars are enclosed and usually larger than mopeds.
Therefore, the same thing applies to a book. A sheet of paper hung from a
twig is not a book, it does not have pages, nor are they bound with a
cover. Same difference. If you start to blur the definition of
everything, you completely destroy the language. Language is about
specifics, not vagueness. TTYL!
Paul Anderson - Self-employed Megalomaniac
"With all due respect, you, sir, have the intellect of a pickle."
FREE mailing lists setup - e-mail newlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for info
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----