[Table of Contents] [Search]

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

Re: philosophy of bookbinding

  Yes. Sorry. I've been reading quickly and distractedly lately.

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Derek Lyons wrote:

> Janet;
> 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:
> >Derek,
> >  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.
> >
> >Janet
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >


            Janet Maher, Loyola College, Fine Art, 410-617-5545
                (web) http://www.qis.net/~jmar/index.balto.html
                (email)  jmar@xxxxxxx

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