Books as a Canvas →
@carissahalston: Welcome to the dark side! Soon you will discover how annoyingly difficult it is to “talk” to people on tumblr. Here goes my attempt:
Thanks for joining me in this conversation. I think it gets complicated because many people have complicated feelings about the sanctity of books. I know that for a long time I carried around the idea that it’s somehow morally wrong to mark up a book, prolly because once my dad nearly killed me when I cut a picture out of our little encyclopedia set and pasted it into my book report. There is an old, old belief that words in print are sacred, and I dig this idea as, er, an idea, but I don’t actually believe it. Like I love the ways books are used to represent magic and power in so many old (and new) stories, love the idea of the scholar-poet as an essential figure in all of human endeavor, love seeing Giles and the Scoobies hanging out in their library headquarters, saving the world. There *is* power in an object when we bestow that power upon it. But I have a hard time fully grasping why it should be so upsetting to anyone to think of altering a book’s original state, or throwing a book away, or making notes in the margins of a book or even just being careless with it, unless it has to do with ideas of over-priveleged people being careless with any of their possessions because they take them for granted, but I don’t think that’s ever what this conversation is about.
I think nowadays people have other concerns in their minds as well, when they talk about how precious books are; lots of people seem worried that digital media will replace print media completely, and in some cases they seem angry about this. I’m more in the camp of Well, huh! That’s interesting. Things are changing. The nature of written communication is changing and therefore the meaning of writing/literature is changing and even the nature of LITERACY is changing. That’s interesting. It’s also interesting that people are feelings things about the changes. Let’s take a look at that. I certainly do love books as objects, some of them anyway, for various complex reasons. I also love computing on the Interbot. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I SEE NO CONFLICT WITH THIS. I am not interested in taking sides in some print v. digital debate and I can’t believe it when people are silly enough to act like that’s a thing. It’s like who’s the most punk rock. Who loves books the MOST? I feel fortunate to be able to use and enjoy both digital and print resources. I myself do *not* feel fidgety when people tear pages out of books, or make art out of them that is not in some way a comment on their content, as you’re saying this guy Brian Dettmer does. (Though the piece you showed here is beautiful and cool.) I also don’t think anyone has a responsibility to make art that I personally find worthwhile or interesting. If they want to I think people should TEAR SHIT UP. I love books and reading more than most people you’ll meet, and although I use the library all the time and regularly give books away I still have literally thousands of them in my small apartment. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that reading — in books, magazines, zines, newspapers, and various digital media — (after the people I love, and on a par with the writing I do myself) is the most important thing in my life. I do not, however, think books are sacred objects. There I said it.
Hi Katie,
I made a tumblr account today just so I could respond to this.
Here are my unrequested two cents on the subject of books as art objects: I am both for and against the practice, in that the marring of a book—the irreparable kind—makes that book completely unusable in the future as a book, but (and here’s where it gets tricky and becomes the reason why so many people rise up off their haunches to scream, “We must save all books for the sake of humanity!”) I also don’t care that much in reference to most books. I say most because I, too, haunch-raise over the idea of certain books even being verbally maligned, much less physically threatened.
However, to speak in favor of mutilation, consider the work of Brian Dettmer:
The piece above shows one way that the text within a book (and, really, the entire book itself) can be altered to create a separate work of art that is actually dependent on the words themselves, rather than ignoring the book’s original content/just using it as a backdrop or canvas (as you so aptly put it) on which to create something entirely unrelated. If it seems that I’m arguing against people who draw on dictionary pages or rip up old books to make origami cranes, it’s because I sort of am, but only in a devil’s advocate sort of way because (as stated above), I don’t actually care with most books and because I know that what I think won’t stop most people from doing whatever they want.
The thing is, people do respect books and they want to cherish the author’s/illustrator’s original intent. I think manipulating the text within a book to alert other people of its existence is as relevant as reading a book and telling other people to read it too.
However, because most of the altering-book-to-create-a-new-art-object is not done to use the original text, everyone gets a little fidgety. We all accept that words are pretty en masse and we also accept that words add texture to what might otherwise be a flat, even canvas. But people who like “art” (quotes used to insinuate high art, fine art, and other often-haughty-adjectives-preceding-art art) feel disdain over “other” art that has no method to its madness. So if a person is using text for no good reason other than its appearance, well, that’s just art for art’s sake and unless it’s breathtaking, people get bent out of shape over it.
