BOOK ART DOES NOT EXIST // Richard Minsky

01 Apr 2018 12:00 AM | Susan Viguers (Administrator)

In June, 2016 I wrote a Book Art Theory blog post, WHY BOTHER WITH WIKIPEDIA?


In January 2017 I started a Wikipedia Book Art entry to replace the current redirect to "Book Arts," which is only a disambiguation page that links to "Artist's Book" and a few other things. Please see what I wrote, which has had a few technical changes by others (View history) but no substantive additions by people knowledgeable about the field of Book Art. Since it doesn't appear on a search for "book art" I doubt anyone knows about it. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_Art 

It's considered a "stub," and until it is fleshed out and is more complete, with better footnotes and references, it will not replace the redirect. If you type "book art" into the Wikipedia search field you will see what happens.  

I am not fluent in Wikipedia editing, but was able to learn enough to get this started. It's just a beginning. Please help get the ball rolling. If you are a registered Wikipedia contributor, or know someone who is, please take a few minutes to add or change content, correct errors, and clarify references. Every bit will help. If you don't have a Wikipedia account you can create one here

It could be a significant resource if done properly. Besides the many educational benefits such an entry would bring, there is the impact on funding Book Art programs and departments. When a Trustee or administrator who knows nothing about book art is cutting programs in a budget crunch, you want them to find a robust entry for your field--not that it doesn't exist except as a footnote to a disambiguation. 

 It is more than an embarrassment that there is no entry specific to the name and purpose of the College Book Art Association or Book Art Theory blog. Although the "artist's book" entry is reasonably well written and organized, it has a distinct point of view that does not represent the larger field of book art of which "artist's books" is a part. Many of our subfields already have entries and are linked from "artist's book" in its "See also" section. This will make our job of creating the Book Art listing easier. Note that this list includes a "List of book arts centers" even though "book arts" remains a disambiguation phrase without its own entry. 

  • Art diary
  • Altered book
  • List of book arts centers
  • Asemic writing
  • Bookbinding
  • Fine press
  • Illuminated manuscript
  • Letterpress printing
  • Miniature book
  • Something Else Press
  • Visual poetry
  • Zine

Please help rectify this situation by going to the entry at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_a_page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Directory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_editing



Richard Minsky is a book artist. In 1974 he founded the Center for Book Arts. The Richard Minsky Archive is at the Yale Arts Library. More at minsky.com



Comments

  • 08 Apr 2018 12:34 PM | Susan Viguers
    So why didn’t I do anything in response to Richard’s earlier post?

    First, I find the idea of dealing with the details of such internet creations hugely daunting.

    Second, I am ambivalent about Wikipedia. Often when I check the entry on something about which I know something, I find it problematic. I have difficulty with the Wikipedia authors being anonymous. (The citations in support aren’t enough for me). I am very aware of my own slant/bias, which adds to my reluctance to revise/add/whatever to a Wikipedia entry.

    Third, I fully agree that Book Arts should NOT be a disambiguation page, but — this comment should have been to Richard’s first post — I am confused about categories/fields and their relationship to each other. For example, I have a problem separating Book Arts from Book Art. Could the title be Book Art/Arts? (Another confession: I’m not wedded to the distinction between Art and Arts.) Artist book would function as both a subfield under that and its own field. Richard’s distinction between a field relating to the art object and a field relating to the craft of making is certainly valid, but the two are so interconnected (and overlapping) and the names of the fields so similar that distinguishing them seems to me confusing (at least to the uninitiated, which is, after all, the audience for Wikipedia).
    Link  •  Reply

SaveSave
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software