[Table of Contents] [Search]

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

Re: [BKARTS] BOOK_ARTS-L Digest - 26 Oct 2003 to 27 Oct 2003 (#2003-297)

>It was, however, curious for me as a binder to note that only 4 of the 51 
accepted >submissions were in the ‘fine binding’ category.  It is perhaps a 
characteristic of >modern artists in general not to join or even subordinate 
their work to another. >Any other thoughts on this?

I have a couple of thoughts, probably not very profound.  The categories in 
this particular exhibition were self-selected; the entrants themselves declared 
how they wanted their pieces judged and viewed.  There were a couple of works 
in the show which were categorized as 'artists' books' which, to me (and a 
few folks I've spoken with, both fine binders and book artists), very much 
qualified as 'fine binding'.  They employed only slightly changed traditional 
materials and structures and included the use of an existing text written by 
another.  Likewise, at least one of the 'fine binding' entries had text written and 
generated by the binder. 

It could simply be that as book artists become more traditionally trained and 
fine binders become more innovative, the categories are blurring.

But, some of the gossip that surrounds any exhibition of this kind has also 
suggested that the jurors were much tougher on the 'fine binding' works, and 
that many were rejected.  That might also account for a greater number of people 
opting for the 'safer' category of artists' books...not as much is expected 
from us poor, deluded artists? <said with a grin!>

Melissa Jay Craig, 

        See the Book_Arts-L FAQ at: <http://www.philobiblon.com>

     *Postings may not be re-printed in any form without the express
     consent of the author - Please respect their contributions & *

        Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine

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