[Table of Contents] [Search]

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

Re: philosophy of bookbinding


My statement was intented to convey that books are intended to be handled.
(Interacted with both manually and intellectually, as Dorothy pointed out.
A piece of sculpture is intended to be be simply viewed, not touched.  And
there is a *big* grey area between the two extremes.

At 01:11 PM 10/5/98 -0400, Janet L. Maher wrote:
>  We had another thread about this going several months back, should be
>in the archives. Only to add my 2c that yes, some books, bookworks,
>artists books may look like sculpture. I agree that in some cases they
>remain purely sculpture and shouldn't be considered a book. However, some
>must be "read", manipulated, are inherently sequential, and visually,
>textually or concepturally narrative, and do indeed have literal or
>metaphorical references to traditional book structure (reaching back to
>the earliest days of bookmaking). In the realm of artists books,
>some of these, I believe, are among the most intriguing and engaging.
>These days in the art world all categories are cross-pollinating and
>there's no end in sight.
>> Dorothy;
>> You've hit a nail on the head here....  Your statements here neatly show
>> the difference between a book and a piece of sculpture that is meant to be
>> viewed.  (The latter often miscalled an 'artists book'.)
>> Derek L.

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