[Table of Contents] [Search]

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

Re: [BKARTS] "Artists' Books" in Literature Departments

Molly Schwartzburg wrote:

>I couldn't tell from your e-mail whether you thought that *I* agreed
>with locating the starting point of the artist's book with Ruscha etal,
>or if you were simply worried that I was perpetuating a false notion.

Neither. I thought you were like Don King. Can't blame you if one of the
contenders bites off the other's ear. You did a great job in the proposal
of defining a session, and it's up to everyone who cares to pick up the
ball and run with it. So much for mixed metaphors. I haven't had as
refreshing a rant in quite a while.

Sorry if I got you neurotic before coffee ;>}

I'm glad you took the time to expand on the politics of the academic
conference business.

Yes, "artist's books" is an obsolete and dysfunctional term.
That's why I prefer Book Art (and not Book Arts).

And I do think the interesting questions are being asked by the cognitive
theory contingent-- glad you kept that in the scope.


        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]