dear cris
well, as you know, I endorse what you're saying about the relationship
betwen text production and meaning. i can see the need for anthologies
and selections and collections, they are different versions - even
translations and transformations - of the first presentations.
the use of colour and typeface and layout in _High Pink on Chrome_ or Asa
Benveniste's print designs, for example for Tom Raworth's _ACT_, or just
as particularly, some of John Cage's work. the idea of the "artist's
book" has been part of what some poets present as part of their work and
has been part of a tendency for many years now, certainly in Britain and
America, including South America, since at least the sixties. Thinking
of Bill Griffiths, Thomas A Clark, Ulli Freer, Brian Catling, Bob Cobbing
.. and in some ways since at least the period when Braque and Reverdy
were involved in _Nord-Sud_, which in turn leads onto recognising what
William Blake and Stephane Mallarme were discussing with the way they
presented their work. This may not mean that their work can only be
discussed in their book contexts, it's just that a loss occurs as soon as
you buy the completed xyz that cuts some of the nuances out. A different
argument could pursue the need for a text irrespective of its presentaton
(for example, those photocopies of out-of-print items that helped me
extend knowledge of someone's work). I suppose that simply begins to
notate the limits of need. The transparency of many _Fluxus_ productions
become obscure or less interesting in collected form - for example the
_Fluxus Codex_ volume that Hendricks edited. This is almost saying that
the original has a precision even preciousness because of its uniqueness
or ephemeral nature, which becomes a potential problem with marketing and
design issues, but sometimes, the way some authors tidy, it's as if the
literary insisted on an isolation from its context, or that tidiness, I
suppose, is its context.
love allen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|