[Table of Contents] [Search]


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

Re: BOOK_ARTS-L Digest - 30 Aug 2001 to 31 Aug 2001 (#2001-233)



             ***********************************************
           See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
     the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
                  your list options,and unsubscribing.
             ***********************************************

Can we get back to BOOK ARTS?
Leon Trotsky


----- Original Message -----
From: "Automatic digest processor" <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
To: "Recipients of BOOK_ARTS-L digests" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:01 PM
Subject: BOOK_ARTS-L Digest - 30 Aug 2001 to 31 Aug 2001 (#2001-233)


> There are 16 messages totalling 842 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. Printed matter in code & Bugs Bunny
>   2. Book Art vs. Book Arts (7)
>   3. Holleley Book (2)
>   4. MOMA and book arts (reply) (2)
>   5. Special Order (2)
>   6. The red and the read
>   7. Margaret E. Davis
>
>              ***********************************************
>             BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
>       For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
>             resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
>                       <http://www.philobiblon.com>
>
>         To unsubscribe, type the following into the message body:
>                             UNSUB Book_Arts-L
>                         COMMAND MUST BE SENT TO:
>                         LISTSERV@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>              ***********************************************
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:06:18 -0400
> From:    SRotolo <suzart6@EARTHLINK.NET>
> Subject: Re: Printed matter in code & Bugs Bunny
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> I dont know why that gibberish happens...all those settings &
> codes...abstraction overtakes realist text...
>
> > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> > &nbsp;
>
> Jules Siegel explaining how to do a drawing of Bugs Bunny giving Art
> Criticism the finger (I won't paste the quote because of those setting
> problems noted above)
> was the best Art Lesson ever.
> Suze Rotolo
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:41:04 -0400
> From:    Michael Joseph <mjoseph@RCI.RUTGERS.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Jules Siegel wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me that the parallel between American support of abstract
> > > expressionism, and Soviet support of Socialist Realism is highly
tendentious,
> >
> > What do you mean by this? The dictionary definition is "marked by a
tendency
> > in favor of a particular point of view." Which point of view am I
favoring
> > markedly?
> >
> > > and, indeed, not only not to be taken seriously
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > >--but not intended to be.
> >
> > I am quite serious about it.
> >
> > > It should have been obvious, that Jules raised the issue of politics
as a red
> > > herring,
> >
> > I raised the point to demonstrate that art criticism can be politically
> > inspired.
> >
>
> Demonstration? Ha!
>
> > Answer these questions: Do you consider yourself to be anti-communist?
> > Anti-Stalinist? Feel that I'm a pinko? Anti-American? Consider it
trivial
> > that Clement Greene's vicious attacks on certain artists destroyed their
> > careers and, it is said, caused some to commit suicide?
> >
> These are not questions. This is a senseless and aimless diatribe, a car
> wreck of a paragraph, with question marks for skid marks, or, maybe a car
> crash filmsplice cut from some noire-ish sixties film. It does have a
> faint, nostalgic, charm, but, in any case, it is not rational argument.
>
> > As you can see, what I am getting at is that there's a distinct
possibility
> > that your erroneous interpretation of my intent is based on your own
> > political agenda. So let's get that out in front.
> >
>
> Right. Or, it could simply be a spontaneous response to what I erroneously
> mistook for an entirely capricious and mean spirited character
> assassination of Clement Greenberg coupled to what I understood to be a
> provincial and dogmatic pronouncement that abstract art is "meaningless,"
> a response that might have arisen from a freely held belief that reductive
> pronouncements on what other people actually find meaningful, fortified
> with political mystifications is at best a kind of sour grapes and
> at worst a kind of cultural narcissism.
>
>
> > > with the sole intention of minimizing the work of abstract artists
> > (i.e., book > artists who work in non-traditional forms),
> >
> > If you actually read my messages, you'll see that despite my personal
> > preferences for craftsmanship, physical beauty and easily accessible
> > meaning, I was arguing in favor of broad definitions rather than narrow
> > ones, even when those broad definitions include works that I personally
find
> > ludicrous.
>
> If I were actually reading your mind I might have seen this, perhaps.
>
> > One reason is that I appreciate the impulse to use art as a form of
> > ridicule. Luckily, since I'm a writer as well as an artist, I can use
verbal
> > sarcasm instead.
> >
> > > But, of course, as a critic, what do I know about art?
> >
> > Humility helps. Glad to see that you recognize your own limits. The best
way
> > to learn more about art would be to create some in a physical sense.
Writing
> > is art, of course, but it's not the same thing as a painting or an
object.
> >
> I am delighted to have made you glad. You will likewise be gladdened to
> know that, in a sense, I agree that one can learn about art process
> through imitation (and did so when I attended art school). But process is
> not art--a point many people have already made. Whatever else it is, it
> affords one a valuable channel into cultural discourses about art. But it
> is not the only channel, and to privilege art-making as "the best way" to
> learn about art," is to fold oneself back into a kind of provincialism
> that credentials "insider reports" over judgment and analysis. This sort
> of us/them prejudice makes sense in some contexts. To learn about medicine
> it would make sense to become a doctor (though not to do some doctoring
> "in a physical sense"). To learn about cabinet making, become a carpenter.
> But, in the humanities it makes less sense. even no sense. To learn about
> Christianity, for example, one doesn't sing Ave Maria.  A recruiting
> poster that hangs in the men's room in the library of the American
> Antiquarian Society reads, "Don't just read American history, make it."
> Fighting or dying in the war, is, presumably, a way to do history "in a
> physical sense," but,this is really just a rhetorical call to arms. Let's
> not talk about art, boys, let's make it! sounds like the same cry.
>
> In an essay that in many ways I actually dislike, "Methods, Theories, and
> the Terrors of History," Russell McCutcheon points out that, "without
> taking insider reports [about religion] and interpretations seriously we
> would have no descriptive data to study," BUT "scholars [critics] must
> carefully devise defensible criteria to determine at what level of
> analysis they do or do not suspend such first person explanatory
> authority." I think it is important to appropriate this insight because it
> helps me to liberate my thinking from the provincialism of the guild.
> Art objects are indispensable starting points for analysis and evaluation
> of art, but simply to credential art makers to tell us what art means (or
> doesn't mean), or to subsume meaning to process is to forfeit our
> obligation as critics.
>
> Michael Joseph
> k
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:29:37 +0000
> From:    Mike Sweetmore <msweetmore@HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> "Do you consider yourself to be anti-communist?
> Anti-Stalinist? Feel that I'm a pinko? Anti-American? Consider
> it trivial that Clement Greene's vicious attacks on certain artists
> destroyed their careers and, it is said, caused some to commit suicide?"
>
> "These are not questions. This is a senseless and aimless
> diatribe, a car wreck of a paragraph, with question marks for skid marks,
> or, maybe a car crash filmsplice cut from some noire-ish sixties film. It
> does have a faint, nostalgic, charm, but, in any case, it is not rational
> argument."
>
> Just to say that they are in fact questions, that the diatribe posesses
both
> sense and aim, that the metaphors may create an atmosphere but detract
from
> the rationality of the argument, and that, although it might be mistaken -
I
> express no view - the preceding quotation does amount to a rational
> argument.
>
> MJS
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:25:12 -0500
> From:    Jules Siegel <siegel@CAFECANCUN.COM>
> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> > From: Michael Joseph <mjoseph@RCI.RUTGERS.EDU>
> > Reply-To: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.philobiblon.com"
> > <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:41:04 -0400
> > To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
> > the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
> > your list options,and unsubscribing.
> > ***********************************************
> >
> >
> >> Answer these questions: Do you consider yourself to be anti-communist?
> >> Anti-Stalinist? Feel that I'm a pinko? Anti-American? Consider it
trivial
> >> that Clement Green[berg's]s vicious attacks on certain artists
destroyed
> >> their careers and, it is said, caused some to commit suicide?
>
> > These are not questions. This is a senseless and aimless diatribe, a car
> > wreck of a paragraph, with question marks for skid marks, or, maybe a
car
> > crash filmsplice cut from some noire-ish sixties film. It does have a
> > faint, nostalgic, charm, but, in any case, it is not rational argument.
>
> It's not an argument. It's a set of questions designed to elicit your
> political attitudes. If you are truthful, your answers will enable me to
> justify my argument or frame a new one.
>
> Just answer the questions, Mr. Joseph. I don't want to be rude, but you do
> tend to engage in diversionary tactics and avoid addressing my comments
> directly. You might also answer why you consider a factual description of
> Clement Greenberg's actions character assassination? I'm not exaggerating
or
> distorting them in any way. The biographical details are quite ugly and
have
> not, as far as I know, been challenged. I don't think that "vicious" is
too
> strong an adjective here.
>
> >> If you actually read my messages, you'll see that despite my personal
> >> preferences for craftsmanship, physical beauty and easily accessible
meaning,
> >> I was arguing in favor of broad definitions rather than narrow ones,
even
> >> when those broad definitions include works that I personally find
ludicrous.
> >>
> > If I were actually reading your mind I might have seen this, perhaps.
>
> How about this?
>
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:42:54 -0500. Jules Siegel <siegel@cafecancun.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> From: Diane Westerfield <dwester@WPO.IT.LUC.EDU>
> >> Reply-To: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.philobiblon.com"
> >> <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> >> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:51:19 -0500
> >> To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
> >
> >> I hate elitism, but one has only to look at the current crafts scene in
the
> >> U.S.  It has been swamped by "hotglue crafters" who stick a bow on a
> >> prefabricated teddy bear and think they have made something wonderful.
Craft
> >> items of all types are often copied by Chinese manufacturers who sell
cheaper
> >> and more cheaply made versions.  These practices have damaged the
credibility
> >> of real crafters who have spent years perfecting their art
>
> > I don't think that the existence of junk damages the credibility of any
"real"
> > artist (note quotation marks). Frankly, most of what passes as book art
looks
> > like performance art to me. That is, it is utterly ridiculous and
without
> > merit, except, possibly, as comedy. I could rave on at great length
about
> > this, but why bother? Some kid starts painting by the numbers and ends
up
> > becoming a great artist. Maybe it's the same with performance art and
hot glue
> > crafters. History makes the final choice, possibly by sheer error, but
mostly,
> > I believe, because true art inspires eternal love and that enables great
> > objects to survive, when they survive.
>
>
> --
>
> JULES SIEGEL Apdo 1764 Cancun Q. Roo 77501
> http://www.cafecancun.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:27:46 EDT
> From:    Bill Drendel <VENEZIA747@AOL.COM>
> Subject: Re: Holleley Book
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> You can order Douglas Holleley's book "Digital Book Design and Publishing"
directly from him at
> http://www.clarellen.com. and he can make a buck on his own book. His
email address is: hollele@attglobal.net.
> It's great and very well done. Get it!
> Bill Drendel
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:33:39 -0400
> From:    Christelle Lachapelle <stellel@SHOPATTACK.COM>
> Subject: Re: Holleley Book
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> I am new to the list, but I must agree. I bought this book and it is
> WONDERFUL!
> Christelle Lachapelle
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Drendel" <VENEZIA747@AOL.COM>
> To: <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Holleley Book
>
>
> >              ***********************************************
> >            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
> >      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
> >                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
> >              ***********************************************
> >
> > You can order Douglas Holleley's book "Digital Book Design and
Publishing"
> directly from him at
> > http://www.clarellen.com. and he can make a buck on his own book. His
> email address is: hollele@attglobal.net.
> > It's great and very well done. Get it!
> > Bill Drendel
> >
> >              ***********************************************
> >             BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
> >       For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
> >             resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
> >                       <http://www.philobiblon.com>
> >
> >         To unsubscribe, type the following into the message body:
> >                             UNSUB Book_Arts-L
> >                         COMMAND MUST BE SENT TO:
> >                         LISTSERV@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >              ***********************************************
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:49:03 EDT
> From:    Louise Neaderland <Isca4art2B@AOL.COM>
> Subject: Re: MOMA and book arts (reply)
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> MOMA has a huge and various book arts collection, as well as having
acquired
> the entire Franklin Furnace archive. LN
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:51:09 -0400
> From:    "Eskra, Mike" <Michael.Eskra@NY.FK.COM>
> Subject: Special Order
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> I am hoping that someone can help me with this request.  I am looking for
an
> archive quality journal book to be used for architectural sketching.  I am
> looking for something in the 100 page range with graph paper pages and
> preferably with light lines.  I live in NY City and have not been able to
> locate something that sparked my interest in this area. Any suggestions of
> places or contacts would be greatly appreciated.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:09:15 EDT
> From:    Bruce Graham <Hidesmith@AOL.COM>
> Subject: Re: Special Order
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> Mike,
>     I don't know if you've gotten any responses about your request for
info
> about archival "sketch books", but I am making archive-quality leather
bound
> blank books by hand, and am interested in talking more with you.
> Thanks,
>
> Bruce
>
> Bruce & Penny Graham
> Vintage Press and Bindery
> Epsom, NH
>
> (603)736-9044
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:24:46 -0400
> From:    Michael Joseph <mjoseph@RCI.RUTGERS.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> "designed to elicit . . .?" " . . . engage in diversionary tactics and
> avoid addressing my comments directly . . . ?" ". . . if you are
> truthful?"
>
> These phrases take me back. I don't mean shock me. I mean, they remind me
> of, well, they remind me of Nixon, really, the sort of tough, ham-handed,
> hot under the collar, committee-backed pursuit of menace and threat, of
> the relentless, beady-eyed pursuit of suspicious, shadowy, undercover,
> evil (or was it evil that was beady-eyed?), that Nixon framed so
> memorably. They remind me of comic books, too, the long, jagged shadows,
> the luridly colored cars that resembled crouching, prehistoric beasts and
> the grimly determined jawlines of guys in hats.
>
> I mean, I am personally fascinated by your interrogation of my politics,
> because it is reminiscent for me of a kind of cold war paranoia, and, more
> broadly of the political sacred. (In the context of this sub-thread,
> Richard, and of Jules Siegel's apparent convictions, I do agree with your
> too-general formulation that poltics is religion; but, surely it is not
> religion for those who do not see it as possessing the authority or power
> of the irreducibly real? Surely for many on this list, and perhaps for
> you, yourself, shouldn't the formulation be 'Art is religion'?)
>
> But, whatever my thoughts on Joe Stalin or communism, they bear none of
> the weight or genetic material of my ideas about the valorization of The
> Book, and the nuanced interelationships between book arts, fine art and
> some all sanctioning, lifeanddeath, idealized 'Art.' I would be amazed
> Jules Siegel, if they were of the remotest interest to anyone else reading
> this discussion group (Mr. Sweetwater a possible exception), who might
> have engaged with other, academic facets of our exchange. It seems a shame
> to leave it at a question of whether I'm soft on the red menace or how
> bloody-minded MOMA is. Of course, discussion groups giveth and discussion
> groups taketh away.
>
> Michael Joseph
>
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Jules Siegel wrote:
> >
> > It's not an argument. It's a set of questions designed to elicit your
> > political attitudes. If you are truthful, your answers will enable me to
> > justify my argument or frame a new one.
> >
> > Just answer the questions, Mr. Joseph. I don't want to be rude, but you
do
> > tend to engage in diversionary tactics and avoid addressing my comments
> > directly. You might also answer why you consider a factual description
of
> > Clement Greenberg's actions character assassination? I'm not
exaggerating or
> > distorting them in any way. The biographical details are quite ugly and
have
> > not, as far as I know, been challenged. I don't think that "vicious" is
too
> > strong an adjective here.
> >
> > >> If you actually read my messages, you'll see that despite my personal
> > >> preferences for craftsmanship, physical beauty and easily accessible
meaning,
> > >> I was arguing in favor of broad definitions rather than narrow ones,
even
> > >> when those broad definitions include works that I personally find
ludicrous.
> > >>
> > > If I were actually reading your mind I might have seen this, perhaps.
> >
> > How about this?
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:42:54 -0500. Jules Siegel <siegel@cafecancun.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> From: Diane Westerfield <dwester@WPO.IT.LUC.EDU>
> > >> Reply-To: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.philobiblon.com"
> > >> <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> > >> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:51:19 -0500
> > >> To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> > >> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
> > >
> > >> I hate elitism, but one has only to look at the current crafts scene
in the
> > >> U.S.  It has been swamped by "hotglue crafters" who stick a bow on a
> > >> prefabricated teddy bear and think they have made something
wonderful. Craft
> > >> items of all types are often copied by Chinese manufacturers who sell
cheaper
> > >> and more cheaply made versions.  These practices have damaged the
credibility
> > >> of real crafters who have spent years perfecting their art
> >
> > > I don't think that the existence of junk damages the credibility of
any "real"
> > > artist (note quotation marks). Frankly, most of what passes as book
art looks
> > > like performance art to me. That is, it is utterly ridiculous and
without
> > > merit, except, possibly, as comedy. I could rave on at great length
about
> > > this, but why bother? Some kid starts painting by the numbers and ends
up
> > > becoming a great artist. Maybe it's the same with performance art and
hot glue
> > > crafters. History makes the final choice, possibly by sheer error, but
mostly,
> > > I believe, because true art inspires eternal love and that enables
great
> > > objects to survive, when they survive.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > JULES SIEGEL Apdo 1764 Cancun Q. Roo 77501
> > http://www.cafecancun.com
> >
> >              ***********************************************
> >             BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
> >       For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
> >             resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
> >                       <http://www.philobiblon.com>
> >
> >         To unsubscribe, type the following into the message body:
> >                             UNSUB Book_Arts-L
> >                         COMMAND MUST BE SENT TO:
> >                         LISTSERV@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >              ***********************************************
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:48:11 -0400
> From:    Michael Brady <jbrady@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> >   But, whatever my thoughts on Joe Stalin or communism, they bear none
of
> >   the weight or genetic material of my ideas about the valorization of
The
> >   Book, and the nuanced interelationships between book arts, fine art
and
> >   some all sanctioning, lifeanddeath, idealized 'Art.' I would be amazed
> >   Jules Siegel, if they were of the remotest interest to anyone else
reading
> >   this discussion group (Mr. Sweetwater a possible exception), who might
> >   have engaged with other, academic facets of our exchange. It seems a
shame
> >   to leave it at a question of whether I'm soft on the red menace or how
> >   bloody-minded MOMA is. Of course, discussion groups giveth and
discussion
> >   groups taketh away.
>
> Boy, you bookish types sling elbows with the best of them!
>
> I was originally intrigued last week when someone opened a thread about a
> distinction between book *art* and book *arts*. That discussion became a
> disputation that became a controversy! Yowza! I have to say, I didn't
expect
> to see that topic on a list that in the year or so I have been on it has
kept
> very narrowly confined to technical questions, exhibition announcements,
and
> other support topics.
>
> I subscribe to two art lists, and the topic of art v. craft is an all-time
> favorite, erupting seasonally in the guise of one flower or another. But,
I
> have to say, I never saw anyone use such epithets as 'Stalinist,' 'pinko,'
> 'Nixonian,' etc.
>
> You guys must be inhaling strong volatile vapors!
>
> FWIW, on the PageMaker list, there's a current pyrotechnic thread about
the
> Indonesian ship that Australia won't allow to dock on the mainland.
Hooo-whee!
>
>
>
> -------------------
> Michael Brady
> jbrady@email.unc.edu   http://www.unc.edu/~jbrady/index.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:35:35 -0500
> From:    Jules Siegel <siegel@CAFECANCUN.COM>
> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> I'm going to answer this and let it drop because it's obvious that you
> aren't going to concede anything. I'm not interrogating you. I'm
responding
> to your snide and very inaccurate accusations:
>
> > It seems to me that the parallel between American support of abstract
> > expressionism, and Soviet support of Socialist Realism is highly
tendentious,
> > and, indeed, not only not to be taken seriously--but not intended to be.
It
> > should have been obvious, that Jules raised the issue of politics as a
red
> > herring, with the sole intention of minimizing the work of abstract
artists
> > (i.e., book artists who work in non-traditional forms),
>
> which I found so personally offensive and unfair that I felt called upon
to
> ask you to reveal your political preferences. I didn't raise the issues as
a
> "red herring" (a Fifties Cold War metaphor). And I certainly didn't do it
to
> minimize the work of book artists who work in non-traditional forms. I was
> doing the opposite -- raising doubts about the validity of restrictive
> definitions of art that often have political rather than aesthetic
> motivations.
>
> You got everything I wrote wrong and then attacked me on the basis of your
> misinterpretations. When I tried to get you to reveal your opinions about
> Clement Greenberg's activities, you accused me of character assassination
> for reporting factual observations. You say that my questions remind you
of:
>
> > the sort of tough, ham-handed, hot under the collar, committee-backed
pursuit
> > of menace and threat, of the relentless, beady-eyed pursuit of
suspicious,
> > shadowy, undercover, evil (or was it evil that was beady-eyed?), that
Nixon
> > framed so memorably. They remind me of comic books, too, the long,
jagged
> > shadows, the luridly colored cars that resembled crouching, prehistoric
beasts
> > and the grimly determined jawlines of guys in hats.
>
> There's nothing like that in any of my posts. My language is, at most,
> mildly joshing in tone. All the overheated verbiage is coming from you,
not
> me. Yet you continue to attack based on your erroneous perceptions and
your
> rather bizarre metaphors that really have nothing at all with what I wrote
> or the way in which I wrote it.
>
> Now you write:
>
> > I would be amazed Jules Siegel, if they were of the remotest interest to
> > anyone else reading this discussion group (Mr. Sweetwater a possible
> > exception), who might have engaged with other, academic facets of our
> > exchange.
>
> Yet there have been several messages either offering further documentation
> and discussion of the political issues or expressing very positive
feelings
> about my contributions in this thread.
>
> You say:
>
> > It seems a shame to leave it at a question of whether I'm soft on the
red
> > menace
>
> Once again, you get my point all wrong. The implication of my questions
was
> whether or not you are an anti-communist (or an American patriot) who is
> underhandedly accusing me of being a pinko because I put the CIA's support
> of abstract expressionism -- and, much more important, destruction of the
> careers of artists who could be construed as working in socialist
realism --
> on the same level as Stalinist art nomenklatur.
>
> You have yet to explain why you feel I'm wrong about that. Why not?
>
> --
>
> JULES SIEGEL Apdo 1764 Cancun Q. Roo 77501
> http://www.cafecancun.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:26:57 -0400
> From:    Paul T Werner <paul.werner@NYU.EDU>
> Subject: The red and the read
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> Okay, while you guys were busy squabbling I sauntered over to the
> library and checked out Florence Rubenfeld's "Clement Greenberg. A
> Life." Unfortunately, Frances Stonor Saunders was unavailable until
> Monday, so for that I'll have to trust my memory.
>
> 1) Clement Greenberg worked for the CIA. Period. He was briefly on the
> executive committee of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, the
> American affiliate/financial dependent of the Congress for Cultural
> Freedom which was subsequently shown to be a CIA front. Remember, the
> CIA is [was?] not allowed to conduct its activities in America.
>
> 2) Was Greenberg "witting?" Saunders spends a great deal of thought
> asking these questions; as I recall, he suggests it would have been
> very difficult indeed for anyone affiliated with the CCF, let alone
> anyone on an executive committee, to *not* know. But read the details
> on the ACCF.
>
> 3) On the third hand (or first foot, if you prefer), Greenberg was so
> politically inept that it may not have occured to him. Check Rubenfeld,
> pp. 121-23. It turns out that in 1951 Greenberg, who had been working
> at the *Nation* for a while, decided to publish a letter accusing the
> magazine of being a Stalinist front, thereby earning himself the
> eternal gratitude of...Congressman George Dondero. That's the same bozo
> who's usually quoted in the art textbooks for his denunciations of
> Abstract-Expressionism as a commie plot. So, far from serving the left-
> of-right "liberals" who were behind the CCF, Greenberg ended up as a
> darling of the McCarthyites, the same people who hated modern art.
>
> 4) Does all of this matter? Well, I'm not going to try to persuade
> anyone and maybe it's time we all stop trying. I do suspect that one of
> the parties in this discussion may be quite a bit younger than the
> other...
>
> Paul T Werner, New York
> http://theorangepress.com
>
> WOID: A journal of visual language
> THE ORANGE PRESS, publishing "Vellum Preparation: History and Technique"
> DRAGONSBLOOD AND ASHES, a project to research and practice the
> techniques of the medieval scribe
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:04:49 +0200
> From:    Mats Broberg <mats.broberg@ARSIMPRIMIS.COM>
> Subject: Margaret E. Davis
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> Dear listmembers,
>
> Does anyone have an e-mail address for Margaret E. Davis of Ma Nao
> Books, of Portland, OR.?
>
> If so, please contact me off list.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sincerely,
> Mats Broberg
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ARS IMPRIMIS PRESS
> Hauptvägen 102
> SE-123 58 Farsta - Sweden
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Telephone: +46 8 604 59 81
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:48:53 -0700
> From:    Neil Aitken <aitkenn@ISLAND.NET>
> Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
> At last, thank you.
>
> Jules Siegel wrote:
> >I'm going to answer this and let it drop....
> >
> Neil Aitken
> P.O. Box 178
> Gabriola, BC Canada
> V0R 1X0
>
> Tel: (250) 247-8685
> Fax: (250) 247-8116
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 31 Aug 2001 20:15:16 -0400
> From:    Richard Minsky <minsky@MINSKY.COM>
> Subject: Re: MOMA and book arts (reply)
>
>              ***********************************************
>            See footer at the bottom of this message (or top of
>      the digest) for instructions on searching the archive, setting
>                   your list options,and unsubscribing.
>              ***********************************************
>
>  Louise Neaderland wrote:
>
> >MOMA has a huge and various book arts collection, as well
> >as having acquired the entire Franklin Furnace archive. LN
>
> Please identify the department that houses the "huge and various book arts
> collection." I will make time next week to go view it!
>
> I haven't seen or heard of it. I know they have the Louis Stern collection
of
> Livres d'Art (books illustrated by famous painters or sculptors), but I am
> unaware of a collection of Book Art (as pertains to this list).  An
anecdote
> about that collection:
>
> In 1969 I made an appointment to examine the Louis Stern collection at the
MOMA
> library. It is a wonderful collection of Voillard-type illustrated books.
But I
> noticed they all had glassine wrapped around them, and where the glassine
was in
> contact with the endpaper or title page, the paper had browned. I pointed
this
> out to the librarian, and told her that the glassine must not be acid
free, and
> the glassines all should be changed.  I never went back there, so I don't
know
> if she got it. It was really disappointing to see such an astounding
collection
> destroyed by incompetence.
>
> I searched their catalog for important works of book art, by artists like
Stella
> Waitzkin, Barton Benes, Marty Greenbaum, Hedi Kyle, Gary Frost, Gérard
> Charrière,  Richard Minsky, Tom Phillips, Jean de Gonet, etc.  There is a
Benes
> book in the FF collection, but the other artists I have named, whom I
consider
> seminal to the book art movement, are represented only by a few catalogs
in the
> library.
>
> --
>
>  Richard
>  http://www.minsky.com
>  http://www.centerforbookarts.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of BOOK_ARTS-L Digest - 30 Aug 2001 to 31 Aug 2001 (#2001-233)
> ******************************************************************

             ***********************************************
            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
                      <http://www.philobiblon.com>

        To unsubscribe, type the following into the message body:
                            UNSUB Book_Arts-L
                        COMMAND MUST BE SENT TO:
                        LISTSERV@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
             ***********************************************


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