Talk:Artist's book

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# 9.2 Collections of artists' books[edit]

I'd like to propose that the only collections to be included in this section are ones that provide substantial images and information about specific book artists and their work. I also don't think it's helpful for libraries to provide links to their OPACs. If there is a collection description page and instructions for how to find images of books and artists, that would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maberry (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quran[edit]

There should be examples of Quran art in this article.

Photos[edit]

One photo wouldn't do it. It would have to be many.... I haven't actually uploaded photos yet and I've been nervous to try it because of copyright issues.--Sue Maberry 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if something like Clive Philpot's various diagrams of the field could be of use as an image (instead of trying to find a representative example(s), a task that is probably impossible). Philpot's diagrams are described in detail in the 'Definition' chapter of S Klima's 'Artists books: a critical survey of the literature': Example: in a 1993 Art Libraries Journal article, Philpot uses a two-circle Venn diagram with Art as one circle and Book as the second; another space within the intersecting area is delineated as 'artists books' and this is further broken down into bookworks, books, and book objects. This is maybe not a perfect solution, but would give someone with no knowledge of the field an instant visual 'way in', and of course could be qualified with a subtitle ('so-and-so's diagram of the field of artist's books'). Emily Artinian 09:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about copyright issues? Sue Maberry 04:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book covers or a sample page-spread that illustrate what artist's books are would count as "fair use" in the context of a Wikipedia article, as I understand the law. (I'm not a lawyer, but there are plenty of book, magazine and newspaper covers reproduced here as "fair use," which is the same law that allows a writer to quote from a copyrighted source.) Reproducing all or a lengthy part of a work might begin to step on copyright holder's toes, but I doubt that's what you have in mind, anyway. Go ahead and uplaoad--on the off chance that there's a problem, someone will alert you, and you can remove the file. BTfromLA 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is an artist book

Definition[edit]

Changed "Artists' books or art books are works of art realized in the form of a book" to "Artists' books are works of art that utilize the form of the book." Art books encompass any book on the subject of art. Artists' books do not always take the form of the book, but borrow from the book's form. Ayanookasan (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]







I believe that the more accepted term is artists' books.--Sue Maberry 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a lot of work. I hope some other centers and experts in this field can assist.--Sue Maberry 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia's entry had way too much PR copy in it. I moved copy to the respective organizational pages. --Sue Maberry 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. Inspired me to cut some of the vague language in the intro, too. BTfromLA 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last week I added in sections for Europe and Asia - hoping others will elaborate soon (thx for Canada addition). Also, split the External links into individual presses and general information. This might be further split into collections / individuals / general info. Or is that too much subdivision? Edits to Philly's entry are helpful. -- Emily Artinian 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Emily Artinian[reply]

two new sections[edit]

have added in the division 'history', and extended it a bit. also added a section for 'critical issues' - this may prove very difficult to write, but is essential I think. Comments welcome! -Emily Artinian 09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which book sellers are appropriate to list on the page?[edit]

My thought is that large publishers who publish book ABOUT art and artists don't belong here. The spirit of artists' books is that they are generally small self-published --Sue Maberry 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)editions.[reply]

Yes, that seems right. Did you have a particular current entry in mind? This section could maybe do with more sub-divisions... However, I can see the 'External Links' section expanding exponentially here, which gets confusing. Perhaps because of this some of the 'external links' sub-categories coud do with their own wikipedia entry + inclusion in the 'See Also' section? This could be especially useful with 'individual artists/presses'. Emily Artinian 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wrote that is because I had deleted Abbeville. They are a huge publisher and not related really to artists books. I'm all for the idea of subdivsions. There is a lot to do on this page and I've just been too busy to work much on it this week. If you have time and ideas, please go for it. We'll all appreciate it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maberry (talk • contribs) .

Do we need a list of book artists?[edit]

I'm thinking of starting a list page.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maberry (talk • contribs) .

Only if they all have individual articles already; otherwise it's better to use a category instead of a list. It would be good to have a short list of very notable book artists in this article though. -Quiddity 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comics?[edit]

I deleted the see also references to comics because I don't think there is that much relationship. But if you disagree, let's discuss it.--Sue Maberry 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Specifically: Minicomic and Art comics)

I tentatively agree. If Art comics gets vastly expanded, it will probably become relevant, but not until then. Minicomics i've linked to Miniature books, which seems sufficient for now. -Quiddity 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also, but perhaps art comics/graphic novels should get a mention as genres that are related and sometimes included under the rubric of book art (the major collections include some, and Printed Matter and especially bookartbookshop stock some). This could go in the 'Critical Issues/Debate' section - probably under 'definition'. There is one excellent book I've come accross that sits exactly between the artist's book and the graphic novel and is therefore useful as a talking point - 'A to Z' by Lars Arrhenius, a description and tiny image of which can be found [here]. Emily Artinian 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Artist's book → Artists' books — This was moved to the singular on the basis that we should "prefer singular nouns" (WP:NC), but it has since been claimed (on my talk page) that "artists' books" is actually the more appropriate title. I'm opening the debate up for wider input. —Stemonitis 06:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Per Sue Maberry's reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since there is such a thing as an artist's book (in the singular) WP:NC should be observed. I think the article gets the balance right, though, by being named according to the convention, and yet using the more common plural artists' books as the word being defined in the lead. This immediately shows the word in both its correct singular and plural forms, which may be helpful to some users. I think, too, that as long as artists' books (and maybe even the less correct artists books and artist book) redirect here, then the article title is both accurate and helpful. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:


The Library of Congress "subject headings" lists them as artists' books. That's VERY authoritative. Plus numerous books by experts in the field call them artists' books, namesly Johanna Drucker. There are also numerous library collections of "artists' books" including the Getty Institute that uses that term. Sue Maberry 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these things known by any other terms? The article mentions "bookworks", but that's a little ambiguous. Maybe something like bookwork art? Ewlyahoocom 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


They are sometimes known as Bookworks or Book Arts, but those terms are broader and often refer to traditional book-like structures using "fine printing" techniques like letterpress. Artists' books ususally, but not always, implies an attention to the form and concept of the book. They are often visual works with unusual bindings. Sue Maberry 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 08:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further notes on "artists' books vs. artist's book"[edit]

The Getty's Art & Architecture Thesaurus - like the Library of Congress Authorities mentioned above, very authoritative - uses plurals for subject headings, but includes the singular as an alternative, so the appropriate entry has:

Books, whether unique or multiple, made or conceived by artists. Includes books produced by artists as a commercial publishing venture with a printer or publisher, usually in traditional book form in limited editions, as well as those formed or arranged so as to reflect or comment upon the artists' aesthetic or political program. For texts written by artists for the sake of their informational content, use "artists'" (ALT of "artists") plus "writings." For artists' books that emphasize the physical book as a work of art, see "bookworks." For works that look like or incorporate books but do not communicate in the ways characteristic of books, see "book objects."

artists' books and artist's book are their preferred terms; artists books is a "used-for" term (i.e. not preferred). Note the link on that page to AAT entries for bookworks and other similar - but differentiated - terms. For AAT/The Getty, bookworks are a sub-type of artists' books. The distinction they make is a useful one. For the Wikipedia article, I think the singular is perfectly fine - it denotes a type, and is consistent with WP guidelines and other articles. Library of Congress Authorities also has a useful scope note on artists' books:

Artists' books - Here are entered books that are produced by artists and intended as visual art objects, and general works about such books. Works on such books produced in a particular place are entered under this heading with local subdivision. Works on books illustrated with original prints by well known artists and published in limited editions are entered under "Artists' illustrated books".
Works on existing books whose pages have been altered by paint, collage, or other media are entered under "Altered books".
Works on custom bindings of books, irrespective of contents, are entered under "Fine bindings".

Pinkville (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted (to Harvard biblio style) and alphabetised the Further Reading Section and added Bright, Bury, Smith and Fusco. I also removed the following (the first two on the basis both that the focus is illustration, and also individual collections (this could be a separate wikipedia entry - 'Collections of Artists' Books' / Special Collections / ??; and the third on the basis it is an exhibition catalogue - however... I have not read any of the three, so if I am mistaken about content, please correct me.

Should this list expand, or is it getting too long?

  • Splendid Pages: The Molly and Walter Bareiss Collection of Modern Illustrated Books by Julie Mellby. 2003.
  • Artists Books in the Modern Era 1870-2000: The Reva and David Logan Collection of Illustrated Books by Robert Flynn Johnson and Donna Stein. 2001.
  • The Next Word: Text and/as Image and/as Design and/as Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Exhibition of Visual Art, Artists' Books, Graphic Design, and Visual Poetry by Johanna Drucker.hi georgia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.94.87 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand made[edit]

Does the definition of artists' books include being hand made or hand finished? Of the very limited editions I've seen, there is something about personal attention in fine art artists' books. It's part of them being an "art" object. If it's in there somewhere, I apologise, my eyez r v tired.Julia Rossi (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with many terms, there is no definitive definition for this genre. Though many artists' books are hand made or hand finished, the majority I'm familiar with are published (i.e., manufactured). That implies that as an operative definition, "hand made or hand finished" isn't a requirement for something to be classified under this heading. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Pruning[edit]

I think that this article should remove any references to courses, colleges, and 'centres of activity'. Pages on Oil painting and Poetry, for instance, don't include such digressions, and I can't see any reason for them here. If anybody not associated with a college would like to disagree, please do. Courses could have their own page, if they don't conflict with the wikipedian NPOV. I would also like to see an attempt to differentiate between artist's books, and livre d'artiste. Any ideas??Trevelyanhouse (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have moved them to a new page, titled 'Artists books: centers of activity'. I've added a link to this in the See Also section here. I think even that page now needs pruning, and much editing for NPOV. Most centers have copied blurbs from their own websites: if there's no distinction between the text here and a center's website, then a simple link to their website should suffice. Eventually I think each significant center should have its own page, and be added to the category of artists books. User:emilyartinian

Ooops!! Finally got round to it Feel free to trash it according to taste. Would love to go further up towards the present day, but it becomes increasingly tricky to get anything approaching a narrative thread. An extension talking about the return to craft, or a picture o Water Yam would be great. Any Takers???Trevelyanhouse (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warja Honegger Lavater contemporary to Roth and Ruscha[edit]

Regarding the section on Dieter Roth and Ed Ruscha as artists working early in this area, shouldn't Warja Honegger-Lavater be included here? Her initial publication of William Tell by the Museum of Modern Art in 1962 is contemporaneous with Ruscha's first work. Like Roth, she might not be as well known (working quietly throughout her career), but chronologically I think she should be considered one of the progenitors, alongside Roth and Ruscha, of this art form. I'll wait for comment prior to modifying this section. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Ruscha's Twentysix Gasoline Stations was published in 1963 (though dated as 1962 in the work itself), then Lavater's William Tell (1962), like Roth's work, predates Ruscha. I don't think one can say "so and so is the inventor of this art form" but including Lavater seems appropriate. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Morris[edit]

I am really surprised that there's nothing in this article about William Morris and his Kelmscott Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing[edit]

Mitzi.humphrey has made a large number of edits here recently. They seem to be mostly intended to add material about people called Humphrey, in particular a curator named Mitzi Humphrey. Is there any reason to suppose that there is not a conflict of interest here? Or any reason not to revert to the last clean version before that series of edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's book[edit]

Is this referring to Book Arts? The number of things I find incorrectly named on Wikipedia is incomprehensible! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 04:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artist's book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artist's book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artist's book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This paged is skewed in artistic movements, forms discussed, and ideas of the book/omits most important artists of the book[edit]

Reading this page, it reads like one authors academic book — and the inclusions support a specific opinion and angle. This is not a balanced page — it lacks the balance one might get by reading the important books about book arts.

For example, the article prefers modified books while ignoring excellent work in traditional Codex form. It mixes photographic books with artists' books, and more.

It's a bit frustrating. Book are a brilliant area for artist work. Made a few smaller changes today. Wouldn't consider making any wholesale changes at this time. But discussion is needed on the topic.

For example, the present article leans toward artists whose primary work is not book form but who also made some books. That is one important areas of artists' books. But only one part. The best work seems to come (from what I see) from artists who primarily work in the form of the book and sometimes do some other work. A reader wouldn't understand that distinction.

How can this page be brought under control and become a valuable page about a wide ranging topic? (Note that I am not allowed to do this by Wikipedia rules in that I work with Timothy C. Ely as an editor of his blog. However, it is a serious problem that this page is pretty poorly written.)

Dsgarnett (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have no COI on this article as long as you do not reference Ely or give his views any prominence. As far as I can see you are free to make changes - but if they are significant you might want to create a draft in a sandpit and ask other editors to comment first. Happy to review that if you ping me -----Snowded TALK 08:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More than Art Book Fairs[edit]

I feel like that article section "Art book fairs" should be expanded. Right now it is essentially a single quote Michalis Pichler. (At the very least, a definition and explanation of the role of art book fairs within the field would be helpful.) However, as one of the few sections that doesn't fit under the chronologically-organized part of the article, the Art book fairs section points to the need for a systematic way of addressing issues that aren't historical. Surely there are aspects of the field that are as important as art book fairs that don't yet have their own section in the article (and I would suggest that some of them are buried in the Critical Reception section). For example, are art book fairs an emerging trend? Or a part of the Communications Circuit? Or a distribution channel? Or a place for critical reception or popularization? In other words, what is the category that will allow us to address equally important aspects of artists' books in a balanced way? --Lsherman3 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artist%27s_book&oldid=1216889945"