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.

Readings Topic 1: The Book Form

The Whatness of Bookness

Philip Smith’s definition of Bookness: http://www.philobiblon.com/bookness.shtml accessed Tuesday, 10 March 2009 8:54:30 PM

“The qualities which have to do with a book. In its simplest meaning the term covers the packaging of multiple planes held together in fixed or variable sequence by some kind of hinging mechanism, support, or container, associated with a visual/verbal content called a text. The term should not strictly speaking include pre-codex carriers of text such as the scroll or the clay tablet, in fact nothing on a single leaf or planar surface such as a TV screen, poster or hand-bill.”

“A blank book is still a book, but a blank dodecahedron or unmarked spiral of paper is not a book, it is a dodecahedron etc”

“A text can be inscribed on anything but this does not make it a book, or have the quality of bookness, even as a scroll retains its scrollness without any text on it.”

I disagree with Smith’s definition regarding the bookness of scrolls. While scrolls could vary in length, they had to be unrolled with one hand and rolled with the other, forming blocks of content that were viewed before the next rolling revealed the next section of text and covered the previous; showing ‘pages’ of text with each rolling – the same function as a spine-bound book, but without ‘bookness’. They were made with the intention of transmitting information. Even before the scroll has any content on it, its intention is the same as that of a codex. If a hinged document (one plane that has been folded) can be regarded as having bookness, then so can a rolled one. Same with clay tablets; their intention is the same whether or not there is text on it, just as a blank codex is still a book, because of its bookness and intended purpose.

Supported by Edward Hutchins http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/bookarts/1996/10/msg00039.html

Smith’s article, written in 1996, can only have been created with an educated glimpse into what is available electronically or digitally 13 years on. It is the increase in the availability and acceptability of books accessed by the “planar surfaces” of computers that has occurred since then that make Smith’s definition at best incomplete and at worst outdated and incorrect.

What is a Book?

http://www.artistbooks.com/editions/wiab.htmlaccessed 15/03/2009 6:27 PM

“When I defined books for myself, I chose not to look at what a book is, what it is made out of, or what it looks like. Instead, I chose to consider how a book is used and what purpose it serves. For me, a book is "a structure for storing and sharing information." ”

“Defining Books in an Electronic Age”. Adapted from postings by Edward Hutchins to the Book Arts List, April 8, 1995 and October 5, 1996

This definition of ‘book’ supports my own definition. Hutchins goes on to say that although many people have tried to arrive at a definition on which everyone can agree it’s not possible. What is possible is for people to find a common ground when discussing books, by using Philip Smith’s “bookness” framework. Hutchins interpretation of bookness; “In other words, instead of saying, "a "book" IS this AND this AND this AND this," maybe we should be saying, "bookness" CONSISTS of this OR this OR this OR this."” allows non-codex or digital ‘books’ to be included when they cannot be using Smith’s definition.

Is it a book?

http://www.philobiblon.com/isitabook/history/index.html accessed 15/03/2009 4:41 PM

“Once the printing press became widely used in the West, and books in the western codex format were produced in large numbers, it became difficult to think of the book in any other fashion. Nearly everyone now expects that a book must have a beginning, middle and end between the two covers. Texts are written in this format, and books continue to be physically constructed to support it.”

This quote from http://www.philobiblon.com/isitabook/history/index.html highlights the difficulty with defining ‘book’. We are so conditioned by what we have been taught is a book, as per Smith’s “packaging of multiple planes held together in fixed or variable sequence by some kind of hinging mechanism, support, or container, associated with a visual/verbal content called a text”, that the things that still serve the same purpose as a conventional codex ie to store and/or communicate information are see and “queer”. Originally posted by Edward Hutchins to the Book Arts List, April 11, 1995 http://www.artistbooks.com/editions/wiab.html

Ironic: Medieval European “manuscripts were sometimes constructed using a tree structure to show the contents of a book in a less strictly hierarchical way than in a table of contents. A similar tree structure is now a common way to show files on a web-site map.”

http://www.philobiblon.com/isitabook/history/index.html

"Book"....

My initial definition of 'book' is:

A book is a device used to store and communicate information, written, illustrated or otherwise, that is available to be consumed by the masses.

The following is what Sue asked us to consider when evaluating our first definition of 'book':

1. What a book is made of

• Paper has a relatively short history as a means of communicating information
• Other materials in different cultures and at different times include clay, stone, silk, leather, parchment, leaves and bamboo

2. What a book looks like - its physical form

• Does a book have to be made of separate pages?
• Do pages have to be bound/joined together in some way?
• Does this binding have to be permanent?
• If the binding is removed is what remains still a book?
• How big or small can a book be?
• Is a scroll a book?
• Does a book have to have a physical form?
• Is an 'electronic book' a book?
• What about a talking book?

3. What the essential components of a book are

• Does a book have to have cover and pages?
• Does a book involve the concept of sequence?

4. What the book contains

• Does a book have to carry, or have the potential to carry, information?

5. How the book is used

• Is a book that is bound up so you cannot read its content still a book?

6. Does a book have to have longevity?

• Can magazines or newspapers be classified as books?

In my definition of 'book' I have purposely not mentioned some of these considerations such as “What as book is made of” and “What a book looks like”. For example, I consider that a digital or virtual book is still a book even though it lacks what Philip Smith considers to be 'bookness' (http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/bookarts/1996/09/msg00153.html).

At the other end of the physical spectrum we're told in A Brief History of the Book (lecture notes: http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/humss/art317/form/briefhist.htm) that multiple wood blocks or tablets that were filled with wax and written on with a stylus "could be joined by lacing to make a more substantial volume, with up to ten tablets sometimes being combined". Smith's 'bookness' has as part of his definition "... the term covers the packaging of multiple planes held together in fixed or variable sequence by some kind of hinging mechanism, support, or container, associated with a visual/verbal content called a text". He then goes on to say that "pre-codex carriers of text such as the scroll or the clay tablet" should not be included. I disagree. Examples such as these indicate to me that the materials from which a book is made cannot impact on the definition of 'book'.

Sequence is a factor I didn’t considering when forming my definition. A picture book, as read by a librarian to a young child, will most likely be read in a fixed and linear sequence. Take the librarian out of the situation and sequence can also be removed. Young children may not begin at the front of the book and they may not proceed sequentially; a page at a time. That doesn't mean that the book they are 'reading' is any less a book. Board books for very young children are one kind of book whose pages have no sequence; for example a book that whose pages comprise a picture of an animal with the animals name underneath. What I'm referring to is not nonlinear narratives, but books whose meaning would not change if the pages of the books were rearranged. On reflection, I don’t think that sequence can be part of the definition of ‘book’.

When considering point 5 – “How the book is used”, and specifically “Is a book that is bound up so you cannot read its content still a book?” my definition needs to be amended. I now feel that information does not necessarily have to be “available to be consumed by the masses”. Anne Frank wrote a diary that was used to store information and had Smith’s ‘bookness’, but it was not intended to be consumed by anyone other than herself. Likewise, a book that is bound in such a way as to make its content unavailable for reading is still a book; it has the same qualities as Anne Frank’s diary.

Emily-Jane Dawson talks about the format of the book and mentions the un-openable book: (http://www.philobiblon.com/isitabook/bookarts/index.html)

“There have been some more dramatic, physical expriments (sic) with the book format (the results of which might not be defined as books by the average reader/observer): these are typically books which are textual or book-like but cannot or were not meant to be easily read - they might be said to be more sculptural than booklike (sic). Some examples of possibilites (sic) in this area are: books which are sewn, taped, stapled, or nailed shut, or which have other structural qualities that keep then from being opened; books which have their pages entirely disfigured so that they cannot be read; books which have words, lines, or whole sections of text covered or blacked out so that new stories are created from the old text; books with their pages torn out; books which have been variously burned, mutilated, or dampened; and books with the pages folded or added to, to create patterns.”

Important to me in this paragraph is the reference to what the definition of book is to “the average reader/observe”.

In regards to the point concerning longevity and if this impacts on whether or not magazines or newspapers can be defined as books, I have kept certain magazines for longer than I have kept hardcover novels. I still think of them as ‘magazine’, but maybe this is a term of convenience, identifying a sub-category of books in the same way that a book of maps is called an ‘atlas’, or a bound graphic novel is still to many a ‘comic’. The newspapers kept by libraries are valuable historical documents, providing social, political, economic and cultural references. Magazines that have been kept are similarly valuable. Both certainly meet James’ criteria of bookness. Many books that are perfect bound have a far shorter life as a usable book than those that are stitched or hand-bound, but they are no less books for their shorter life.

I considered the function of ‘book’ to be the critical factor when formulating my definition.

My amended version reads:

A book is a device used to store and communicate information, written, illustrated or otherwise.