----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth James" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "british & irish poets" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 15 April 2000 00:21
Subject: artists' books


| ... would like to know from the point of view of writers who collaborate
| with artists (as opposed, perhaps, to merely accepting invitations to
| provide text, or conversely, comissioning a nice cover design), what are
| you after, what do you get out of it? etc.

I am confused by this set of questions, Elizabeth, though I doubt that we
shall disagree; so if I add my penn'orth (and I shall!) it is meant
supportively.

I think once we rule out one side or the other of a collaboration which
provides an optional part of an assembled product, then presumably we are
assuming the necessity of the contribution - i.e. a painter's publication
without text is still a publication though obviously a different kind of
publication to one which has a text by a writer & a writer's publication
without a nice cover design provided by another kind of artist is still a
writer's publication

Taking your questions at face value, a writer is not an artist, and I
dispute that totally and unconditionally. I don't think though that you
meant that! With or without the possession by The Writer of specific
graphical skills often associated with the notion of The Painter, writing is
a part of the wider activity we call art.

The distinction between the two activities is often effected by referring to
The Painter rather than The Artist; but, in the craft(s) of designing
printing and binding books, there is a call for skills which are neither
clearly Painting (or Sculpting or Engraving etc) or Writing. It is
unfortunate that "Artist" means a practitioner in all the arts *and Painter
etc

Some Painters write, so I don't see why Writers shouldn't draw or paint.
Furthermore, the skills do not reside according to our categorisations. Many
who are ostensibly writers have graphical skills (and musical skills) and
vice versa with Painters and Musicians.

There are some artists who are not writers who are a bit sniffy about
writers' contributions in this area; but they are few - one meets the same
kind of nonsense from the occasional artist who is a musician with regard to
the extension of writing into areas of utterance which are not just spoken
word

The term "Artist's Book" is unfortunate in that it appears to apportion the
genre to one rather than the other set of artists.

Artists Books are being made by all kinds of artists, and not all of them
are collaborations. Avoiding separating artists into sheep and other
animals, is trying to avoid boundaries within the arts. For some there are
such boundaries; but they should not be reified

One answer, from me and not offered as a general answer, as to why one does
artists books and what one gets out of it includes that word "necessity".
One is extending the written element. The word "graphic", in its origin, is
tied up with the meaning "writing".

I have said that the written word is a poor code for notating our utterance
and, for me, emphasising the visual element of a text and book is a way of
making my (potential) meaning clear. The necessity is not always present.
Sometimes one wants the simplicity of a typed text

Thus, I see the question of collaboration as a separate though overlaying
question. One collaborates with another for many reasons, as you know
yourself. Among those reasons is the sharing of skills, each brings
something. It may be that one does the pictures and another does the text;
but, potentially and often in practice, it will be less easily defined than
that

All the best


L



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%