Friday, November 5, 2010

Hot off the presses

Those of you who subscribe to the Book Arts List may well have seen this link posted today, but if you haven't, Stephanie Cristello asks some interesting questions in the Chicago Art Magazine.

7 comments:

ronnie said...

nice link rhubbie!

and some very interesting points raised within...... when is something book art? it certainly would be nice to hear other people's thoughts.... (I thought the article was abridged and remained resolutely vague - but maybe that was in order to be open-minded?)

some years ago I curated a show ('calligraphy past-present-future') for bega regional gallery ... and as part of that I was keen to challenge an audience's idea of what calligraphy might mean or be. oh the show included lots and lots of straight forward, uncontroversial traditional and contemporary calligraphy alright - but I also included a couple of pieces that really pushed the envelope! (one, by megan mcdonald was a HUGE 'calligraphic' drawing.... not a letter in sight.... another was a large abstracted painting from yours truly - with 3 small stencilled letters in the middle) the thing I learned from putting this out there was - definitions were only really important for institutions - the public was mostly concerned with whether they found it interesting or not....

'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'

Abigail Thomas said...

ooo thanks for the link; i managed to ignore that link when it came into my email box - far too many emails to answer lol! will read this on my lunch break today.

Abigail Thomas said...

well, that didn't take very long to read! it was so short in fact that I thought perhaps I was missing a page or that it was a introduction to something longer? interesting subject and something that deserves some thought and perhaps a longer, more in depth article. but maybe I am being unduly harsh?

Its just I think when you are talking about book art and how it doesn't always resemble a book it would be good to hear from all sorts of corners, not just the sculptural/altered/destructionist side. It would have been good to hear from the e-book side of things aswell as the art-with-a-narrative-but-not-necessarily-a-book-form, plus of course if you are talking about 'reading' a piece of art you can mention that all art is 'read' in some way, but that doesn't make it book art. Lost of points I would like to cover myself at some point if/when I have the time!

moreidlethoughts said...

Yes, I did see this in my reader and thought it somewhat lacking, but, as Abigail says, provocative enough to warrant further discussion.

Those of you who are printmakers know the similarly difficult time we have explaining why an art print is different from a "copy" print. And why letterpress and lithography (often) need further explanation.

And now I'm off to persuade our local Council that Artspace holds an excellent collection of such books and should be better-promoted by Council.

Abigail Thomas said...

hope you manage to convince them!

Carol said...

I too, read this, and while disappointed that it wasn't more in depth, thought it's not a bad stepping off point for discussion.

Good luck with the Council, Di!

Ampersand Duck said...

Yeah, I put a link to this up on Facebook. I just don't think 'Book Arts' can really be squished into a box (even though the box might be book-shaped!)... the range of work that can be seen as 'book arts' is just way too broad. As I said in Mackay, I'm waiting for the bibliographers to discover the breadth of it as a whole new sphere of study. My first reaction to the title was 'of course not', but really, it's just a good hook to get an audience into reading about one small corner of the book arts world, and any attention to it is a good thing!