[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unique Books?
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Unique Books?
- From: Roberta Lavadour <paper@OREGONTRAIL.NET>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:46:21 -0800
- Message-Id: <199902011739.JAA23852@palimpsest.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
It seems that much of the ambiguity in book arts documentation results from
not having a formal tradition of terms, as printmaking has. When a
printmaker creates images, they are pretty clearly defined - monoprint,
monotype, editioned, etc. Very few things are left to interpretation or
Peter had good advise about using MARC cataloging for more traditional
bookworks, but I'd be curious to hear what the curators of bookwork
collections look for in documentation, expecially for more sculptural
From: Kurt Klappenbach <amibach@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: Unique Books?
>Could a printer/binder then create a edition of 20 books and then claim
>each one is unique because the leather used to bind each one is slightly
>different? I would not think that the recepient/customer of each "unique"
>"one of a kind" book would very pleased to learn of the exsistence of the
>others and the hair spliting that developed their definition as a one of a
>kind item. Being ethical about ones work and its representation is
>and follwing the spirit of what is meant by unique in artistic
>representation should be included.