Artist's Books - more questions

If “An artist book is an object that deals with or extends the function of a book” (my emphasis) then how can there be artist’s books online?

The functionality of a book pertains to its physicality; turning pages, a cover to protect it. My blog entry about my Issey Miyake book is now questionable. I didn’t consider the function of a book when designing it except as a mechanism whereby pages are turned to see new information. Is that enough consideration? Or is this 1995 quote dated? Perhaps its parameters are too confining, after all, the Book Arts Web members couldn’t come to an answer that all were happy with, (3 years after the aforementioned site) how are the rest of us supposed to?

What is an Artist?

I’ve never seen myself as an artist. For one of my graphic design subjects we were asked to create graffiti while bearing in mind the implications of that genre. I stencilled a chimp barring his teeth in a scream and holding a globe of the world onto a 1250h x 350w mirror. It was a comment on man stuffing up the world – the chimp is laughing at us: he could have done a better job of looking after it.

I spent a huge amount of time on complicated stencils, and love the result, but if I think of it as Art I feel like a fraud, after all, I’m the person who used an enlarger projector in an illustration subject! I see my self as a crafter – I make greeting cards and scrapbook; and I’ve done paper sculpture and paper tole; cross stitch; knitting; and sewing amongst others.

My point is this: my graffiti piece meets the ‘content’, ‘human action’ and ‘appropriate form’ criteria of 'Art', but I didn’t make it with the intent of creating ‘Art’. To me it was ‘design’ . If the lecturer had decided to put the class’ work in the Gallop Gallery, would it have become ‘Art’ because of the context? I think of it as Art now, does that change what is was when I made it three years ago? Are the drawings from that illustration class ‘Art’ because they fit a pre-conceived definition of what Art is? One of them is a graphite pencil illustration of my son as a toddler, dripping wet with a hose in his hand (I used the enlarger to trace a photograph – cheating, I know). I love it, and so do other people. Another is of a friend’s young daughter kneeling on the ground in a tutu, taken from behind and above in a three-quarter profile. I did that one in coloured pencils, and other people love that one too. But I didn’t consider myself to be an artist when I made them; I struggled, did lots of trials and worked harder than in any subject I’d done before or since.

If my mirror and drawings end up being displayed in my home, like Art, what does that make that black and white photograph of a fish on a silver plater (it's bevel-mounted!), or the abstract design I did that ended up on a hand-made paper shopping bag? Even though all the pieces were created as a student and marked by a professional are the illustrations and mirror different from my fish or bag or even the scrapbook pages (and I have one of those in a frame on display) because of their ability to suit the context of ‘display on a wall’? I have framed several of my cross stitches and they’re hung on walls, does that convert them from Craft to Art?

Artists book(’)s (to quote the Book_Arts-L listserv) simply raised more questions for me, and as I read the entire listserv, it seems the same applies to people whom I assume to be far more knowledgeable and familiar with the topic than I.

From this:

1. “An artist’s book is a book made by an artist” (Donald Farren).

2. “A book whose whole entity is intended to be a work of art” (Karen Sanders).

3. “Physical or intellectual artefacts which are intended to be evaluated primarily by aesthetic, rather than utilitarian or cost criteria.” (Jane [last name unknown]

4. “Intent is everything. An Artists' book is different from other books simply because it conceived and executed from the beginning as a work of art by its creator. Nothing anyone thinks changes the original intent of the artist.” (Michael Morin)

5. “An "artist book" is an assemblage of folios, bound or otherwise, meant to be observed in a sequential fashion, either arbitrary or predetermined, and comprised of elements both textual, or pictorial. Construction is often of an importance equal to that of content. Modes of reproduction are variable, as are methods of construction.” (Michael Babcock)

6. "Artists book" is a [controversial term given to] book or book-like object in which the primary interest, or emphasis, is visual rather than textual.”

7. Artist book - A booklike structure of at least 100 pages, opened to approximately page 50, spread evenly with a gem from the recently opened can of worms and SLAMMED FORCEFULLY!!!!! until bits of gunk are evenly distributed over the book, the table, and the artist. (Preferrably within splatting distance of the urinal in the museum.) (Georgie McNeese)

To this:

“Many people, schooled and otherwise, have this hangup about "Art" and "Artists". Duchamp's urinal, mentioned earlier, proved once and for all, that art is whatever we want it to be; that any work (object, composition, dance, thought, etc) in the right situation or context (time and space) *can* be considered to transcend its fellows (other urinals, for example), or simply be sublime in its own right, and be "Art". If only one person considers it to be Art, then -- for that person -- it *is* Art, and if that person can convince sufficient others then for *all* of them it is Art. Obviously, if no one considers it Art, then it isn't.

Further, art is generally considered to be works such as painting, sculpture, musical compositions, dance, etc, therefore those who create such works are artists. If I paint, I am an artist. If I call myself an artist, no one can say with certainty otherwise. They may say I am not a good artist but that is only their opinion. If five people think I am a good artist, and five people think I'm not, then what am I? It depends upon whom you ask. Those painters who are considered to be great artists convinced sufficient others (through words or work) to be thought so. Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema used to be considered a great artist: today, most people haven't heard of him and of those who have, most consider him to have been not so great. Europe used to be almost crowded with court painters, musicians, etc, who were in their time, celebrated: today they are forgotten except by a few dusty scholars. Times change, tastes change, circumstances change; and life goes on.

The long and the short of all this is that if Mary Smith calls herslf an artist, and makes what she calls artists books (with or without the apostrophe), then who is to say otherwise. Some will, of course, say she is not, or her works are not art but might be craft, or whatever, but to her friends, family, acquaintances, and maybe even some critics (remember, everyone's a critic) she is considered an Artist and what she does is considered Art. Only time will tell if it really is art, and for how long it will remain so.” (Richard Miller)

I like the way definition #6 is heading in terms of the visual being of primary interest, but it is incomplete. Books such as Window by Jeanne Baker and Green Air by Jill Morris and Lindsay Muir are created by using photographs of original artwork to illustrate the pages. Baker’s pages don’t have any text and while Morris’s do, the focus of the pages are most definitely the illustrations; but neither book could be considered to be an artist’s book.

Another thing to consider in this definition is the structure of books. Both Ed Hutchins and Emily Martin are book artists, yet the many of their works could not be described as ‘book’ or ‘book-like’. Hutchins’ Words for the World and Martin’s Vicious Circle #6 are two such examples.

One of the artist’s books I found in my research defies all the descriptions I have quoted so far: The Reál: Las Vegas, Nevada (Taylor, Mark, C. and Marquez, Jose Publisher [United States]: Williams College Museum of Art; Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art [MASS MoCA], 1997.) is digital (A synopsis can be found here.)

By an interesting twist of fate, I found that one of the authors had participated in the Book_Arts-L listserv discussion. He had this to say (without alteration):

“I thought I'd say something about "electronic artists books" since that category has all *three* points of contention.

Last year, an artist-writer and a philosopher made a CD-ROM and called it an artists book. Apparently, it's so because then a museum published it and a big University press released it.

Since I'm one of those two crooks (the artist-writer), the recent debate on this list is pretty amusing. I mean, after the CD-ROM was done, I went out and got a press and started laying down type.

There is no trajectory as to what must happen in the future of books, nor are there absolute boundaries in art.

Personally, I feel that when I can put a small animation on a piece of paper or play a sound at the turn of a page, there won't be a need for CD-ROMs -- far cheaper to produce than die-cut jobs and offset printing, btw. It's also good to consider that books are often made to *communicate with other people.* I chose a CD-ROM over a more precious book form because I wanted to reach a large number of people, affordably, *and* I wanted to force people to use their computer for something else than looking at sports stats, stock reports, psycho gunmen games and porn.” (Jose Marquez)

The listserv discussion was in March 1998. I wonder if the people who posted on it would revise their opinions today.