http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2012/02/for-presidents-day-a-tower-of-lincoln-books.html
Other close-up pictures show quite the realistic image of these books. Other than an obvious fire hazard, weight, and perhaps availability, I wonder if there are other reasons for not using actual books to build this tower. For instance, do you think some people might oppose using the book itself as a mere "spectacle?" I'm thinking of those who might oppose this particular artistic vision of books - "BOOKS ARE FOR READING NOT FOR TOWER-BUILDING!" Would anyone now or in the past be so ardent on the subject?
The reason I chose to lead with this story is because moments/monuments like these produce so many questions about how we think of books in both the physical and textual sense. And as if I needed to be convinced that so many layers exist to the study of books, Bowers solidifies the fact that The "tower of Lincoln" can prompt questions of both theory and practicality (mostly if it was actually constructed of books). All of this leads me to the passage from McGann about textual transmission:
Besides, 'literary' work, in its textual condition, is not meant for transparency, is not designed to carry messages. Messages may be taken from such work, but always and only by acts of simplification and diminishment. So readers, in those ghostly shapes we call critics and scholars, hear many voices in the texts they study.
If critics and scholars hear 'many voices' in the texts they study (and we've been over this before with Foucault and Barthes), I think it's important to look at historical bibliographic work and the work of textual criticism (not only as linked) but also as both dealing with these 'many voices.' When examining the history of a physical book - its printing, where/when/to whom it has been sold, its edition, size, pieces/passages/portions omitted - these are all voices and they are interpreted, it seems, as if a set of data. We can choose to use this historical information to come to more than one conclusion - and while these conclusions may not be as numerous as those of textual interpretation - but I wonder if these 'messages' given to use from historical bibliography can be seen as acts of "simplification and diminishment." I take it that McGann would say no, but I would open this up to debate. I will reach back to my leading story about the tower of Lincoln "books" and my list of reasons why the books are not, in fact, "books." Keep in mind I did acknowledge all of the practical reasons one wouldn't construct a tower of 7,000 *actual* books - but what if someone didn't want to do it purely because of where the books had been, what they would be "worth" after being crushed between other books, etc etc. People do make these arguments and they do, to me, seem to link to bibliographic studies (to some degree). What say you? :)
The tower of "books" example makes me think of books used as art. This link: http://karanarora.posterous.com/insane-art-formed-by-carving-books-with-surgi
ReplyDeletehas been floating around the social media world lately, featuring carved books as art pieces. While this form of art is not new, I think this is an interesting example of the changing physical forms of texts and connects with your question about how these changes affect the "worth" of a text. Worth in this sense I think could also include the continued study of such a piece. These pieces (I would say) are still technically books, but are no longer used as a book, or even viewed as books in the same way the "fake books" in the Lincoln Tower.
The artist, or creator, of these pieces has this to say about his changes to the form of the texts:
"My work is a collaboration with the existing material and its past creators and the completed pieces expose new relationships of the book’s internal elements exactly where they have been since their original conception."
"The richness and depth of the book is universally respected yet often undiscovered as the monopoly of the form and relevance of the information fades over time. The book’s intended function has decreased and the form remains linear in a non-linear world. By altering physical forms of information and shifting preconceived functions, new and unexpected roles emerge."
The books used in the creation of these pieces are mostly (according to the website) outdated encyclopedias, medical books, etc, so the content itself is outdated. Are these still "books" now that the perception of them as texts and their use has changed? If these pieces were not outdated factual pieces, would this change the way they were viewed, particularly if the image created related to the text? Nothing has been added to them, only removed.
Another example I would bring up are notebooks made from texts. The covers and certain pages are left in the notebook, but blank pages are also added and a new binding created. I guess this doesn't really answer your question, but I thought these were interesting similar-but-different examples.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI heard this story, too, though I was kind of disappointed to realize they weren't really books (but how could they be?). It reminds me of Jorge Borges' “The Library of Babel“--have you read it? http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html
ReplyDelete