I wish I had the time to respond to this at length – by coincidence I’m pressed for time mainly because I’m catching up after a series of artists’ book events that we’ve been conducting this semester.

 

Here’s a quick bullet-point list of thoughts:

 

-- I’m an art library paraprofessional and book artist – not an art librarian – so my comments should be seen in that context.  With that said, I believe that people in the field connect so strongly with artists’ books because they combine both the visceral love of books that drive many people to research/information careers in the first place, and the ‘art-object-essence’ (I’m sure there’s a German word for that…) that drives people to art history and studio art, specifically.

 

-- While libraries might seem like the wrong place for original art objects, they’re perfectly prepared for artists’ books because of the precedent of special collections.  Galleries and museums may be less prepared for an art form that requires handling and manipulation by the viewer.  But libraries are used to providing hands-on access to precious objects – we’ve always done it. 

 

-- As far as the value that artists’ books provide TO art libraries – for one thing, in our library they are a major point of connection with a wider public.  Yes they are used by some researchers on campus, and yes they are used as a teaching collection for book arts classes in the studio art department.  But in addition, yesterday when Vamp & Tramp Booksellers came to visit, we had 50+ people in our library specifically to see the artists’ books – many of whom I had never seen here before.  That will translate into many things:  new repeat patrons (increased use = better statistics = justification for funding);  inspired local artists;  donations to the library;  and general good will that may pay off in some unforeseeable way in the future (a positive vote on a bond referendum for a new fine arts library?)  All of our events that have been centered around artists’ books have had really good turnout and positive response.

 

On the academic side, the level of serious scholarship on artists’ books may not fully justify the energy that goes into them yet – but the genre itself is only between 50-100 years old (debatable dates, certainly).  The scholarship is picking up.  We see more and more graduate students studying and writing about them.  And with the ascent of all things digital, people’s fascination with the book as an object is increasing.  As a bibliophile it’s sad to see the decline in the book’s dominance as a vehicle for information – but at the same time, people are paying attention to the physical book now more than ever.  I see the scholarly field expanding greatly in the future.

 

Well now I’ve gone on at length, anyway.  One last thing, in response to Patricia Barnett’s question: 

 

“Artists have been known to produce art for themselves, but if there weren’t so many art librarians collecting artists books, would there be so many artists books produced?”