NewLight Press Interview

NewLight Press

Began by asking why REAEDR is considered as magazine rather than an artists' book:

'I would like to ask a few quick questions about your REAEDR magazine, particularly why you define it as a magazine rather than an artists book? From my research so far I have identified the artist book through cheap democratic multiples and editions. The fact that the magazine relies on the subjective interpretation of the artist, I would assume that the publication is made with artists' intent and therefore constitutes as an artist book? It would be hugely beneficial for me to hear your views as I've found your manifesto really interesting.'

REPLY:

Hi James,

Thanks for getting in touch. The main reason that I am calling REAEDR a magazine and not a book is because it will have multiple issues. It could be an "artists' magazine"--there is a precedent for that, and REAEDR probably fits the criteria. As for the relationship of REAEDR to artist's intent--it's tricky because there are multiple artists involved, and a kind of layering of "intent"--the original text submissions, the typefaces, the overall design, the format, the sequence, etc. 

I hope that's helpful! Let me know if you have any more questions.

Comments
This lead me to look at artists' magazines which I can use to demonstrate the alternative spaces that the artists' book provides. Seem to carry on the DIY ethos
'functioning as an alternative exhibition space for the dematerialised practices of conceptual art.' (Gwen, 2011)

Dematerialised:

• (in science fiction) disappear by means of some imagined technological process.

  
  

  "he watched the time machine dematerialize"
• replace (physical records or certificates) with a paperless computerized system.

  
  

  "a dematerialized stock lending service"

Online publishing is also continuing the dematerialisation of art?

Second Email - I decided to get back in contact with Aaron from NewLight Press to ask him some further questions specific to artists' books to clarify/offer different views from my research:


1) Why do critics believe the democratic multiple to be a 'myth'? Has the democratic multiple evolved into publishing as artistic practice? 

When I think of the history of the term "democratic multiple" I think of a pair of (great) essays by Lucy Lippard: "The Artist's Book Goes Public" and "Conspicuous Consumption: New Artists' Books," (both of which are published in: Artists' Books: A Critical Anthology and Sourcebook, edited by Joan Lyons). In those essays Lippard puts forth the idea that artists' books failed as a "democratic" mode because most of their content was inaccessible/uninteresting to a "mass" audience. So there is this historical idea of a failure that occurred in the 70s. (But is that a failure of the artists's book, or of Conceptual Art practices of the 70s? Or is it the "failure" of one fairly rigid definition of the artist's book? And why is failure/success rooted in one particular time? Aren't we in this for the long haul?). The other piece is that offset printing, which for a while was the only way to mass produce a book, was prohibitively expensive, or an artist would have to produce such a large edition that it wasn't worth it--they would never be able to sell that many copies. That, obviously, is changing with digital printing, print-on-demand, and the internet as distribution/publicity network. So I think that the "democratic multiple" is coming back--but because of other forms--independent music, comics, zines, posters, etc. (Broadened access to the means of production, and to funding models plays a role there as well.)

"Publishing as artistic practice" is I think related to the idea of the democratic multiple, but they aren't the same thing. For example, I consider my work, as the NewLights Press, to be "publishing as artistic practice." It doesn't function like a traditional publisher, and partly functions as an investigation or deconstruction or reconstruction of that role. And part of that de/re/dis-construction is the production of various forms/models/modes: large, affordable editions sold way too cheaply to handmade, unique books that carry a hefty price tag, and everything in between. So NewLights is "publishing as artistic practice" precisely because it is unstable and mutable. I am committed to exploring the book and how it operates in the world--and that can take many forms simultaneously, and some of them might look like the traditional "democratic multiple."

2) Do you believe the artist book has had an impact on independent publishing? If so, what are these main influences? 

Yes, independent publishing and mainstream publishing both. Mostly in a greater attention to the book as object, and also in some reading/writing strategies (intertextuality, intermedia, facsimile/trompe l'oeil, physical/interactive reading, etc.). And there are some indie literary publishers that publish things that are very much like artists' books, and/or "writers" that produce "texts" that really are artists' books.

3) Do you believe artists' books should be experienced as digital potential? 

I like this idea of "digital potential." I make mostly physical books, but I always find it frustrating when people assume that I am somehow "against" the digital book/text because of that. I'm not "against" the digital at all--I just find the physical labor of making books very appealing. And that is where my skill set is. I do wonder if thinking of digital artists' books, as "books" is somehow actually limiting. Maybe these digital objects should be conceived of, thought of, as their own class of object? And explored as such? I also use the "digital book" in a very mundane, practical way--to archive out-of-print books and keep them accessible. I love that I can do that.