Posted by Dan on January 05, 1999 at 14:24:09:
In Reply to: Re: What discussion subjects are inappropriate here? posted by Gary Gestson on January 05, 1999 at 11:08:57:
: In "CHATS" archives, October 28th, 1997, there was
: a discussion instigated by Dr. Richard Illing titled,
: "Breaking up books". In that unedited exchange, Dan
: expressed his very valid opinion. However, in his first
: entry (1/2?) a few days ago, I felt that he was using
: this forum as an opportunity to advance an agenda.
: He was using "CHATS" to organize, to "UNITE" those
: that are listening to "BOYCOTT" those people that
: sell book-plates. I did not save the entry, but that
: was the gist of it.
Hello again to Gary and all,
Let me say again that I'm sorry for being a thorn. Gary is certainly right when he said I got carried away, and I can't blame him for removing my first message. However, I would like to clarify what I did say, as I believe it's being misrepresented here.
I DID NOT say that dealers who sell book plates should be boycotted. (That is far from my intention, particularly as I myself am now getting rid of all the book plates in my possession!) I did say that we should unite in not buying BOOKPLATES from dealers when it involves the breaking up of a book.
What I was really trying (and no doubt failing) to get across is that we as buyers must share in the responsibility for this action. Dealers divide up books and sell the plates because there is a better market for them that way. But if you think about this phenomenon, it's absurd. Why should the sum of the broken fractions of something be worth more than the healthy whole? The reason has to do with the buyers, and their lack of knowledge of the value of books; the seller only follows their logic, the logic of the market.
Nor was the call for a boycott of bookplate auctions at all the gist of my statement, only the last two lines. My main points were:
1) A book print out of a book is not at all the same aesthetic entity as one inside of it, because:
a) Prints in books were designed for the book format, particularly with double-page prints, which are designed around the central well. I also believe some book prints were designed to curve with the natural curve of a book, not to be seen flat.
b) Prints removed from books are often on extremely thin paper (being actually just half of a page) and more easily damaged this way, as well as less aesthetically pleasing.
c) Some books have a meaningful sequence of images that is lost when the prints are removed. I think this is also the case even in apparently "random" books like the Manga, where clear patterns do exist within the wild variety.
d) The removal of a print from a book involves a certain degree of mutilation, the trimming of margins, which are sometimes left uneven, and the removal of text pages and covers (which are a major part of the beauty of many books.)
2) The major reason prints are removed from books is not because they look better that way, but for money. Therefore I believe dealers should not continue to perform this act and buyers should not support it by paying money for plates removed from books. Again, my goal here was not to damage anyone, but to say that people should be more aware of their actions and dealers more responsible. In an ideal world, a complete book would be appreciated more, and have a value greater than its parts.
That, I believe, was the gist of my statement, though Gary is certainly right in saying it was a little hotter the 1st time around, and not to be blamed for removing it.
Dan