Book with typographical gimmicks

[pynchonoid]

--- Steven <mcquaryq at comcast.net> wrote:

> 	Have to disagree -- good art is made by artists not
> committees.   
> There's something to be said for having a circle of
> like-minded  
> individuals (a scene) who play off each other, but I
> don't think  
> that's the same as collaborative effort.

That's what I mean here by collaboration, groups of
artists and others who influence and help each other,
not necessarily work together co-creating particular
works, the way things worked among some of the
Impressionists, for example. I'm taking it in the
broad sense.

Obviously great works of art can be created by
individuals working in solitude, but communities (not
committees) can produce a lot of good stuff, too.

A book is produced by a group of artists, isn't it? 
Author, book designer, illustrator (if necessary).

Can a magazine be a work of art?  An editorial p.o.v.
will filter the work of many artists.

Networking, these sorts of broad forms of
collaboration, the easy spread of new ideas - it all
contributes to the creation of new works of art,
always has, but with so much of it online and digital,
it all moves faster.  That will spread the garbage
around faster, too, no doubt. 


> Exquisite
> corpses are  
> amusing but not meaningfully so.  Movies are good to
> the degree that  
> a single artistic presence dominates. 
> Paintings...there are examples  
> of surrealist collaborations but nothing has lasted
> but the  
> individual perspectives.
> 
> 	Steve
> 
> 
> On Sep 16, 2006, at 12:23 AM, pynchonoid wrote:
> 
> > Networking technology makes it easier to do this
> stuff
> > as a group, and that pushes it along, amping the
> > collaborative element that's been a component of
> every
> > major art scene for the past several hundred
> years.
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com