Comments on: What is a book?

By: Micha Hillburg

Sat, 21 Jul 2012 06:11:58 +0000

Some truly superb content on this website , thankyou for contribution.

]]>

By: odkrywcy

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:30:04 +0000

Rattling clear site, thankyou for this post.

]]>

By: Deirdre

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:21:11 +0000

Thanks Mallie,

This topic should be a continuing conversation for everyone especially as “e books” are becoming more popular. I believe that there is room for both types of books especially in the worlds of art and culture.

Best, Deirdre

]]>

By: Andy Birsh

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:00:17 +0000

So far, the printed book remains the world’s best option for presenting thought in a long form.

What has changed is that thought that tends toward organization as a database — reference works, catalogues, etc. — can become hugely more encompassing and dynamic through computer formatting and high-speed digital transmission.

But ideas that need room to be persuasively expounded (rather than just summarized); histories that rely on detail and evidence to prove their points; invented tales that run longer, say, than the length of a standard novel’s chapter; life stories that have some of the breadth of life itself: none of these really circulate outside of the realm of printed text bound into books.

The book, in common with music and visual art, has a history of sometimes being treated as sacred. Millions of people have reached agreements, if you will, to accept certain books, music, and art as divinely revealed, integral to acts of worship, and at risk of defilement in various ways. And many millions more, although non-believers, are well aware that these books (it’s primarily books), are held sacred by large numbers of other people. So far, there are no major (and perhaps not even minor) examples of a movie, a video, or a website widely recognized as sacred to (as distinct from widely respected by or intimately known by) a share of any population. The Holy Bible, the Qur’an, and their counterparts still command a degree of respect that extends beyond their text to their bindings, pages, illustration (or prohibiting of illustration), and even their methods of storage and display.

We naturally tend to equate a respect for books with a respect for learning, but a book is a neutral thing, as liable to be full of lies as full of truths and given as much to rants as wisdom. And, of course, since the birth of mass book production, there have been glaring instances of books whose cultural importance has far outstripped simply being read. In China from 1964 to 1976, life itself might depend on being able to pull a copy of Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong from one’s pocket. What other than a small book could be so pervasive and pernicious?

It is just as natural to equate a vision of the demise of the printed book with a vision of a demise of broad learning and a dwindling human capacity to pay attention to things that can’t flicker or change shape before your eyes. But books have always, for the most part, been a result, for good or ill, of the drives of individuals to say, invent, or gather together something extensive (and hard to interrupt). This complicated, powerful drive certainly had no distinct beginning, and what has ever met its demands like a book?

]]>

By: marshall weber

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:01:39 +0000

book, paper, sky, virtual, reject rationalism, its failed, make it yourself book, academic function limits, make culture, do it yourself, art is a verb, modernist propaganda categorized, the children don’t care the children don’t care the children don’t care about your categories book, passion trumps rationalism, touch it all, touch, its all good the children don’t make a hierarchy of form, one medium doesn’t replace another, all practice hybrids, book, vehicle, book, its all good and, no sides, no camps, all the universe, post mod as in way beyond rationalist interpretations an anarchist culture, not a plant kingdom, not an open market, a free market of ideas, an open book book, it already has converged, mixed, merged, confused, collapsed, made love, intermingled, had the first spat, pages spread open wide book page web page surf read browse virtual visceral flesh digital electric sweat all create function reception audience content culture

the important point is not the book as an object or a virtual but as a representative of the concept of the library as an institution that expands public space and dialog by any means necessary, as a creative check and a healthy alternative to government and corporate and market discourse – the current brutality is where is academia in this equation? – fronting for corporate interests or struggling for the public good?

freedom of expression and speech is about the how all media functioning – the children care about the message

the children are the book

]]>

By: Sasha Chavchavadze

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:19:00 +0000

In response to the question about the book vs. the internet, as the world become increasingly digitized, I think there is a physical need for the aesthetic of the tangible object. This phenomenon is perfectly manifested in the book. This doesn’t require a wholesale rejection of th digital phenomenon. It’s not necessary to join one camp or another; they are not mutually exclusive. At Proteus Gowanus, we look back at early forms through exhibits of art, artifact and books, while embracing contemporary forms. There is a palpable sense of nostalgia in the best sense of the word when people enter the space, as if they are finding something that has been missing in the digital environment. This is enhanced by the fact that they can touch almost everything in the gallery (sometimes with white gloves!) Finally, I find the aesthetic and experience of reading a book contemplative and restful, something I don’t experience on the internet.

]]>

By: timothy hull

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:55:42 +0000

the fundamental problem with the digital book is that a book is already portable. unlike music, tv and other diversions that necessitate a small device for portability outside their own primary existence, the book itself is already an object that over thousands of years has needed very little alteration and remains one of the most portable objects in its primary state. i think the idea of the digital book has its time and place but will not neccessarily usurp the functionality of the analog version.

]]>

By: Clem Labine

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:44:07 +0000

By: Buzz Spector

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:51:15 +0000

Most artists, like most book lovers, are not only cognizant of the physical properties of the object, but expect those properties to offer meaningful engagement with what’s being looked at. We usually don’t touch art (including much book art), so properties of scale, color, materiality, and surface texture are assessed from a distance. In holding books we add awareness of their weight and flexibility to those criteria.
All of this is preamble to reading, however, and it is the absorption in reading which shrinks our sensory awareness from the (public) site of artworks to that of the (private) space of pages.

Comparing “book lovers” with “Internet lovers” isn’t sufficiently equivalent. We are usually looking at something when we call a book “beautiful,” and we are usually searching for information when are using the Internet. There are interesting arguments to be had over the intellectual benefits of browsing bookshelves versus surfing the web, but these disputes orbit more around notions of classification and taxonomy than, say, the attractiveness of rooms full of books, shelves, and aisles versus that of computer screens.

That said, I still prefer to curl up in bed with a book of paper and pages to even the sexiest handheld digital reader.

]]>