User talk:Emilyartinian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Emilyartinian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Lost 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Helpme

I went digging through your contribs for a minute -- it looks like they're all pointing at Artists' Books, which I believe was the way you wanted it, yes? I saw you removed the request, so maybe I should just let it sit, but on the other hand maybe you'd like to know just how fast helpme responses can get to be. :) Luna Santin 10:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems plausible -- to tell the truth, I know how to place redirects, but I've got about no idea how they work, heh. Could be the database, could maybe also be a browser cache. Hard to tell, sometimes. :) Happy editing. Luna Santin 10:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hi,Emily... I've been away on vacation. Now that I'm back, I'm thinking about the request for images in the artists' books article. I'm worried about the permissions issue with artists books. But I was just looking at your website and noticed that you have great images of your books. Would you be willing to upload them to the Commons or let me do it? I haven't actually uploaded images yet, but I'm willing to learn. I have a friend who will let me upload some of her work which could then be put in the article. Over time other artists might be willing to allow their images to be added as well. It would greatly improve the article. What do you think?Sue Maberry 04:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re your email survey

Hi there, thanks for your email survey, but I have nver before been to this article. Your email prompted me to visit the article, edit a little and raise a question about defining artists' books on the article talk page. So my answers to your three questions are 1. No; 2. Yes; 3. Not as it stands.

I personally don't find the article itself engaging because it contains a long list-style roundup of centres in the States which seems to bend the article topic itself, out of shape.* As a former print artist myself, the whole charm of an artists' book as object is its 3D haptic presence, personal expression, its comparative rarity (eg, limited edition, materiality, specialised production etc), its resonance with the artist's body by implication in contrast with mass production, avoiding "mere image" (meant in a reductive way, not negatively) or other distancing technologies. It has the nuance of a succinct personalised statement implying much more. I'd like to see more exploration of history, context, concepts, how it functions in relation to digitisation, and where the artist book is going, in the article than promoting masses of artist book production centres, but that's just my POV. Best with your paper, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(*There are almanacs and directories for this kind of thing such as galleries in localities and so on, so maybe a separate article for this purpose would be more suitable, even preferable, and just a few paragraphs on general development and overview of the movement in the article itself.)