Survey of the field

From Eva Weinmayr Wiki
Revision as of 11:14, 18 December 2019 by Ccl (talk | contribs) (Feminist Search Tool)
Jump to: navigation, search

This isn't done yet


This section provides a context for the contribution made by the research project as a whole. It does so by gathering a range of examples that are used to identify and delimit the general conditions of knowledge-practice with respect to the politics of publishing at the intersection of contemporary art, radical education and institutional analysis. The artistic examples and practices I will describe in the following are spread widely in terms of geography and history, and they are also drawn from a wide range of disciplinary frames. This wide field of sampling is informed by a commitment to work transversally and to not be bound by the protocols of one field alone – such as for example contemporary art or feminist organisational practices.

On closer inspection, the practices I discuss all share two distinct features: They are discrete instances, where the dominant paradigms of publishing and the formation of knowledge have been in some way or another adjusted and they act as declared counter-political project. In sampling these arguably disparate practices I did not start with explicit criteria, instead through sampling I arrived at explicit criteria – that in turn helps me to name and delimit the context into which I am making a contribution.

All the examples and practices described interfere in distinct critical ways with notions of authorship, editorial processes, design and production as well as distribution, but also with concepts of classifying, archiving and also reading publications. Overall this communality ties them together into a broader act of contesting power.

The examples addressed are as follows: Early conceptual artists books, as a decentralisation of the art system by setting up own infrastructures of production and distribution; Second wave feminist publishing (See Red) as an example for collectivity as process of discovery and articulation; Interventions into existing publishing infrastructures such as Cildo Mereiless 'Insertions into ideological circuits' and the Yes Men. Radical Librarianship, such as and memoryofthe, Kvinnsam at Gothenburg University and 'The Feminist Search Tool' at Utrecht University concerned with access, organisation, classification and validation of knowledge; and the work of the Radical Open Access Collective in the UK around open access and the ethics of care concerned with countering the calculative logic of metrification that permeates academic publishing.

These examples are discussed in a broadly chronological sequence, however, it is not suggested that there is any developmental narrative here as such. Rather, these different examples provide a genealogy of concerns that help to locate the specific contribution of the current enquiry.

the serving library

Early conceptual artist books: Setting up infrastructures of production and distribution (the 60s and 70s)

Artists' books at the time were arguably a means to circumvent established institutions and perhaps to a certain degree an attempt to reform the art system by: “(1) the use of inexpensive printing and production methods allowed anyone to be a publisher, (2) alternative distribution networks were ‘aiding in the decentralization of the art system …’, (3) this form of art was portable and disposable and (4) these works were, or could be, ‘democratic objects’”.[1] [2]

These artistic practices criticised the paradigms of the art market by avoiding the aura of preciousness, uniqueness by using mass production techniques such as commercial litho printing. In contrast to traditional, unique art objects “a book’s text is infinitely replicable, the number of copies that can be printed is theoretically limitless.”[3]

Art theorist Lucy Lippard argues that the main reason the book has proved to be so attractive as an artistic medium has to do with the fact that artists’ books are ‘considered by many the easiest way out of the art world and into the heart of a broader audience’.[4] Lippard describes here the fundamental political potential of the artists' book as a conceptual and material means to question, intervene in and disturb existing practices and institutions.

The challenge, however, was the setting up production and distribution systems, that provided an alternative way to circulate the books without falling back to exclusionary market mechanisms of the art system. Investigating whether artists could set up independent systems of circulation the editors of Art-Rite magazine put out a call:

“Artists’ Books – We are investigating the possibilities of a publishing and distribution system for artists’ books. (This does not mean catalogues.) Do you have: a) already published books that we can distribute or sell on consignment? b) Completely planned, unpublished books with or without dummies? c) names of other artists who have either one? Let us know. Please send information to: PRINTED MATTER, 164 Mulberry St., NYC 10013.”[5]

Due to their perceived potential to subvert the (commercial, profit-driven) gallery system and to politicise artistic practice - artist books according to Joan Lyons played an important part in the rise of independent art structures.[6] Artists started to set up their own distribution infrastructures by founding independent artist book shops[7], in an attempt to counter the hegemonic art gallery market –to a certain extent. This disclaimer is necessary, as history has shown, that artists books were prone to be easily recaptured by the system. Firstly because many artists at the time were relying on gallery representation and gallery distribution. And secondly, because the descriptor “artist book” implies, that we deal with an object, which can easily be recaptured by the market as a collectable. Ed Ruscha, for example, writes in a letter to John Wilcock, the founder of Village Voice in New York: “I made a terrible mistake by numbering my “26 Gasoline Stations” books, because then the books became a limited edition rather than just another book, which is what I am after”.[8]

Terminologies and identity politics

The term artists' book is still widely in use, as the names of the 'New York Art Book Fair' (founded by A.A. Bronson/Printed Matter in 2004 [fact check]), "London Art Book Fair" (Whitechapel Art Gallery, London) evidence. However, for my inquiry into the social agency of publishing the term 'publishing' seems more useful. This new terminology suggests shifting the focus from the finished object to the process. This is being discussed in more detail in the chapter →'Confronting authorship, Constructing Practices'.

However while the term "artists’ publishing" shifts the emphasis to the process it limits its applicability to authors, who define themselves as artists. Richard Kostelanetz writes in 1979 'One trouble with the current term artists’ books is that it defines a work of art by the initial profession (or education) of its author, rather than by qualities of the work itself. Since genuine critical categories are meant to define art of a particular kind, it is a false term. The art at hand is books no matter who did them; and it is differences among them, rather than in their authorship, that should comprise the stuff of critical discourse.' [3]Due to the problematic of the author question in “artist’s publishing” the term ‘independent publishing’ and self-publishing has been introduced. Both terms are seeking to distance the practice from institutional or mainstream commercial publishing practices.

This observation of authorship assigned to specific identities, professions or disciplines seems relevant for my inquiry and has been discussed and experimented with in a variety of forms. It comes up for instance in the discussion around the complexities of →classification and in the practice of →Boxing and Unboxing.

Making Public: “Insertions into Ideological Circuits”

In his series of works “Insertions into Ideological Circuits” (1970) the Brazilian artist Cildo Mereiles infiltrated already existing infrastructures of circulation by screen printing anti war slogans on recyclable Coca Cola bottles, or rubber stamped critical questions about the dictatorship on one dollar bills to circulate them through many hands. Here the artist merely “piggy-bagged” on already existing infrastructures of circulation as carrier for his messages. In the same vein in November 2008 activists around the US prankster collective The Yes Men “hacked” the New York Times by printing a “special edition” of 80,000 copies, which was distributed for free to passers-by on the streets of several US cities. This special edition was a perfect replica of The New York Times. The activists co-opted the authority and visual appearance of the New York Times in order to circulate a visionary “best case scenario” with hypothetical headlines and articles, such as “Iraq War Ends”, “Minimum Wage Law Passes Congress”, USA Patriot Act Repealed”, All Public Universities to Be Free”. [9]

Dematerialisation of art, >>collaboration>>tranversal collective practices

Lucy R. Lippard, ed.. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972: A Cross-Reference Book of Information on Esthetic Boundaries (New York: Praeger, 1973).

Publishing as pedagogical, dialogical process

In the 60s and 70s political and feminist groups in a politicised climate of counter-information radical print-shops and collective screen print workshops (See Red) in London [10], feminist magazines (Spare Rib), and a vivid feminist zine culture (Riot girrrls) developed in many cities across Europe and the US in order to raise awareness against inequality and discrimination. Rejecting the role of the artist these activists participated in a network of campaign groups, radical publishers and distributors. One could argue, that the focus here was less on concepts of format or material qualities of a publication, instead the poster, magazine, book were a means to an end, to agitate, to activate, to get the message out, to give voice, create solidarity and work collectively towards change.

For the See Red feminist silkscreen poster collective, for example, which started in London in 1974 working collectively was central. “In the early days the posters were mainly produced about our own personal experiences as women, about the oppression of housework, childcare and the negative image of women. An idea for a poster would be discussed in the group, a member would work on a design, bring it back for comment, someone else might make changes and so on until the collective was satisfied with the end result; no one individually took the credit. This was a concept many in the art world found hard to accept: ‘who holds the pencil? Someone must hold the pencil!’” [11] The collective of women got together to combat the negative image of the women in advertising and the media. Suzy Mackie and Pru Stevenson, founding members of the See Red Women’s Workshop stressed in a public talk at The Showroom in London how important it was to gather in person and generate ideas about how to visualise a particular issue that was important to them. It was the activity of articulating experiences and collective brainstorming and the discussion of ideas that led to sharp slogans and imagery for the posters.

I understand from these self-descriptions, that the collective work on developing a slogan, an image for a poster was a collective process of discovery, a dialogical process which was facilitated through collective making. So when does the making public start? Around the working table?

Example 2: Elise and Celestin Freinet purchase of a printing press for the classroom, elementary school in France (1926) to work in the classroom with students to produce own teaching material and textbooks. collective editing, peer review, school journal to be exchanged with other schools. Contextual publishing. School archive own classification system.

Radical Librarianship

Questions of access and validation

Setting up self-organised libraries has become a field of practice for a range of artists and activists as a way to rethink the infrastructure of knowledge formation. Their practices can be described as creating a knowledge commons and as social and anarchist technique, which problematises the enclosure and privilege of knowledge in institutional libraries. [12]

Among the range of artists who have worked with libraries as part of their art practice, is, for example, Martha Rosler’s personal collection of books, which she lent to e-flux in order to create reading rooms in New York, and several cities across Europe open to the general public. This collection of books is curated by the artist and has been framed as artwork by an individual artist. While Rosler rejected the perception, that this exhibited library can be read as a kind of portrait of hers, it nonetheless focusses around her artist personality and lines of thinking. While it can be seen as a generous gesture to provide temporarily public access to a personal library, conceptually one could say it replicates the power structures of one individual deciding what goes in and is kept out.

By comparison, a different and perhaps more community-building approach take various small libraries and reading rooms emerging in cities in Europe and the US in recent years. Often set up by artists or connected to newly emerging maker spaces, these small community-run libraries are informally organised and cater to the needs of local residents and various community groups living in the area. They are building on the tradition of collectively run infoshops or community archives arising in the 70s and 80s in the UK as part of social movements. They operated independently, not council-run or organisationally affiliated and were catering explicitly for the information (and other, social and cultural) needs of its users. (Atton 1999)

Shadow Libraries

In the same vein, the curatorial principle of online library projects by artists and activists, such as the peer-to-peer sharing platforms or are starting from the idea “when everybody is a librarian, library is everywhere”. Both projects are digital platforms. They are open and non-theme based online repositories for sharing mostly theory texts, which are uploaded by the platforms’ users. Memory of the World, initiated and hosted by Marcell Mars states “The Public Library is first — free access to books for every member of society, second — a library catalogue, and third — a librarian. With books ready to be shared [online], meticulously catalogued, everyone is a librarian. When everyone is a librarian, the library is everywhere.” [13] I will come back to the cataloguing aspect of such practice in the next paragraph.
monoskop, libgen, etc
By comparison, comes from a slightly different angle. It is often understood solely as an open-source platform for freely sharing books but is actually born from a desire to share books with others in order to start a conversation. It developed from gatherings of the Public School, a self-organised educational project in Los Angeles, which started in 2007.[14] It was founded by Fiona Whitton and Sean Dockray. They felt that a curriculum always comes with an institutionalised agenda defining a prescribed canon of learning. In the Public School, people propose classes they want to take or want to teach and collaborate in exploring the proposed subjects together. [15] Public School has been spreading to other cities such as Buenos Aires, Berlin, San Francisco, New York, Durham, Helsinki, London, Vienna among others. has become over the years a huge repository of theory texts and therefore a vital tool for artists, theorists and academics, who have not access to academic libraries or are not able to find the material in institutional repositories.

Other practices likewise share the aim to counter institutional distribution monopolies and a wide range of online repositories have been built over the last two decades. However, these repositories differ in one crucial aspect from user-generated peer-to-peer platforms in that they are individually curated. Ubuweb, for example, is a highly controlled online archive for text, audio and video and curated by conceptual writer Kenneth Goldsmiths in New York. Monoskop, a private book collection turned into a public online archive run by Dusan Barok in Amsterdam. The Public Collectors online archive is curated and maintained by Marc Fisher in Chicago (Temporary Services).[16] In contrast to these digital libraries Antonia Hirsch’s The Surplus Library on Affect & Economic Exchange instigates the lending of individually owned hardcopy books, mediated through an online platform, which indicates the location of the book to be lent from (mostly) private book collections.[17]

While this second set of platforms operate as accessible repositories built through generous acts of critical archiving, they are not user run and are in most cases tightly connected to an individual (artist). The question and problem which has been addressed in recent activist discourse is to find ways how such infrastructures could be collectivised in order to secure the accessibility and usability of decades of content digitising and archiving for future generations.

Historically libraries operated in two ways, as philanthropic institutions “providing access to knowledge for every member of the community” but equally as disciplinary institutions. Disciplinary, because only selected material has been validated as worthwhile being included and passed on. This creates a canon. It can be expanded and opened up to new entries and views, however, a library serving a white middle-class male readership gathers material for the white Western middle-class readership. If no topics are included, that serves a newly arrived immigrant community or the queer, trans, lesbian community, these groups won’t count as patrons. So, the question arises whether the library shapes its readership or the readers form the library. And how to escape this on-going self-reproducing mechanism?

All the above-described practices share the concern of how to provide access to material, which is not collected by institutional libraries or archives or is tucked away in private collections. Implicit in the question of access is the question of finding, and therefore of organising, indexing and cataloguing.

Questions of organisation and classification

Classifying, indexing, summarising or key-wording is always an act of interpretation. It is a framing procedure, controlling how content will be found and interpreted. Melvil Dewey’s classification system for example, which has become a standard organising system in many public libraries worldwide has been criticised by his biographer as being based on “a patriarchal White Western (and, of course, Christian)” worldview. (Wiegand xxx) What is left out here is a whole range of alternative perspectives on humanity’s knowledge. (see detailed discussion: Weinmayr, Library Underground, p.166).

Problem 1: Universal Language The radical library movement in the 70 and 80s was looking at such biases. In particular Sanford Berman’s study “Prejudices and Antipathies-A Tract on the Library of Congress Subject Heads Concerning People” (Berman 1971) revealed that Library of Congress subject headings, particularly those that are used to identify groups of people, perpetuate “the exclusionary cultural supremacy of the mainstream patriarchal, Euro-settler culture” (Olson 2000). In a word, many subject headings exhibit “bias”: that is, they use language that shows prejudice in favour of particular points of view, and against others. Berman’s study and critique actually resulted in changes in the LC catalogue: 64% of Berman’s suggested “remedies” have been implemented since the publication of his critique, but the 80 items, which remain unchanged show some patterns of thought pertaining to the Christian religion. [18] (Please watch the video Library Underground for a detailed discussion.)

However cataloguing is not only controlling how specific content is framed, but it also determines whether content will be found at all. Internet search engines, for example, are the front door to the www. Google’s search algorithm can be easily adjusted, and search results manipulated according to specific interests.

KvinnSam, the National Resource Library for Gender Studies at Gothenburg University

developed a response to biased cataloguing. In 1958 three librarians at Gothenburg University library started collecting and cataloguing women literature, material about women struggle for suffrage and got aware that within the existing holdings was plenty of material relevant to women and gender struggle, but it was not catalogued as such. The relevant keywords were missing and therefore hard to find. The librarian started to establish a parallel keyword catalogue, analogue at the time, by indexing the already existing holdings of Gothenburg University library in order to make aspects of gender manifest and therefore searchable. Today, Kvinnsam is a digital keyword search catalogue which operates parallel to the standard search catalogue. It can be browsed in order to find specific material, that would not show up in the standard catalog.

Feminist Search Tool

Similar activism to question the architecture and implicit biases in the organisation of knowledge drives a group of contemporary artists, who are affiliated with the Read-in collective in Utrecht. Collaborating with the librarians at Utrecht University library they developed a Feminist Search Tool, which starts from the question: “Why are the authors of the books I read so white, so male, so Eurocentric?” [19] To answer this question they developed a digital interface, based on the library’s Marc21** fields, an international digital cataloguing standard (Machine-Readable Cataloguing), which aims to map the existing library records (from 2006-2016) applying different categories, such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class. The digital interface invites the users to apply different categories to their search and maps the existing library records from 2006 – 2016 according to selected filters, such as the language of publication, place of publication, type of publisher, the gender of the author. The search results then map how many female non-Western authors and female authors of colour are represented and therefore reveal inclusion and exclusion mechanisms of our knowledge institutes. In contrast to KvinnSam search engine developed in Gothenburg, it is not a search engine for known-item search, delivery search, that is a search for a specific item for which either the authors or the title is known. Instead, th Feminist search tool operates as an “awareness-raising tool to stir conversations about the inclusion and exclusion mechanisms that are inherent to our current Western knowledge economy and our own complicities in (re)producing what is considered as ‘knowledge’ (and what is not).” As such this intervention is not be seen as a replacement for the UU library catalogue, “but a supplementary tool for any inquiring person to approach one’s own biases and taken for granted truths that one is reproducing whilst studying and researching”.[19]

Infrastructural Manoevres, Rietveld Library Amsterdam

Radical Librarianship / Teaching The Radical Catalog

A large body of research has documented biases of gender, sexuality, age, class, ethnicity, language and religion in the construction of a universal language in the naming of information for retrieval. This universal language uses a controlled vocabulary to represent documents. It limits diversity and has a direct practical impact on the reader searching for materials outside of a traditional mainstream, materials crossing disciplines or marginalised topics. This controlled vocabulary appears unbiased and universally applicable - but it actually hides its exclusions under the guise of neutrality. According to library scholar and teacher, Emily Drabinski “classification schemes are socially produced and embedded structures. They are products of human labor that carry traces of all the intentional and unintentional racism, sexism, and classism of the workers who create them. [...] We cannot do a classification scheme objectively; it is the nature of subject analysis to be subjective.” [20]

Problem 2: Hierarchical Structure, Fixity

Library activists such as Berman, whose suggested remedies to the LC subject headings, such as the elimination of the conspicuous racist “Yellow Peril” in 1989, has called attention to the hegemonic nature of classification. However, as Drabinski argues, while he is struggling to change the thesaurus he leaves the structural problems untouched. And according to Drabinski Berman’s approach actually presupposes, that there is some “right” language, that could be universally understood and applied.” But the politics of language is virtually always contested. “And the struggle for a universal “correct” language does not account for the ways in which language is inherently political and contextual.” Language and descriptors are also in motion when it comes to shifting identities….

[indigenous classifications…]

Therefore critical feminist libraries developed contextual, local classifications, which are user-centred for particular collections, or put effort, funds and energy in developing a user-centred classification for particular collections, such as the Glasgow Women Library and The Feminist Library in London. It is the critical engagement with the catalogue and its architecture, which is at stake. Not uncritically taking the classification for granted “as though it were a natural landscape rather than a well-manicured lawn that is the product of intellectual labor”. [21]

[Drabinski 'Teaching the Radical Catalog': Alongside revising the library catalogue: a method would be to teach its implicit contestations and biases... more]

These contestations around subject classification relate mainly to physical libraries. In online repositories, the introduction of full-text search and keywords help to a certain extent to overcome the problem. To a certain extent, because the interfaces provide a limited structure for Metadata, as we will see further below.

Performative Propositions: Policy Document at ERG

In early 2018, a group of students and staff at École de Récherche Graphique in Brussels circulated a policy document "Proposals for amendment to be made regarding the study rules".[22] Article 2 in this document refers to library policies:

"When the author identifies himself as the cis-type, heterosexual and white man, the books will be moved within the archives to recall, on the one hand, that this is one point of view among others. On the other hand, that the latter is hegemonic. A warning page will have to be included in each book when the readers will wish to consult the said works. Strict quotas will be put in place regarding the selection of the books represented. Attention will be paid to both subjects, the writing context and the authors." The topics under quota to be represented list: gender issues, queer issues, feminism, afro-feminism, trans-feminism, xeno-feminism, intersectional feminism, ecofeminism, eco-sexualite, LGBT, LGBTQQ I2SPAA+."

This policy document, sounding radical and almost utopian in its dramatic propositions, makes us pay attention to the fact, that authors who became part of the published canon speak from particular vantage points. The differences of authorial perspective need to be acknowledged and not swept under the carpet of universality and neutrality.

In an even bolder step article 3 in the same document proposes, therefore, to relate the payment of tuition fees to privilege. For this, a catalogue of ten criteria is drawn up: male, heterosexual, cis-gender, white, standard body, valid (valide), well-read, middle-class and bourgeois, carnivorous, human. If a student's profile, for instance, ticks three out of ten boxes (3/10), this coefficient will be applied in two ways: The percentage - in the example 30 per cent - is added to tuition fees and other expenses, such as prices at the coffee machine, for photocopies and other materials. But the percentage will also be deducted as "penalty" from achieved points in the academic evaluation and jury assessments. Apparently the policies described are so far only proposed, as its implementation, in reality, would amount to negative discrimination which is illegal in most European countries.

However such propositions can be performative: When I travelled to Brussels, visiting ERG in summer 2018, to talk to the document's authors, they explained – not without blurting out a giggle – how much this proposition already had stirred up day-to-day assumptions on privileges and social background at their art school. The document was posted on the walls of the art school, as well as emailed to staff members and students. Taking in the suggested rules appealed to any staff member to consider, name, acknowledge and eventually unlearn their own privileges, I was told.

Dissemination: Digital Turn / Open Access

Can current academic publishing ecosystem learn from experimental artistic and feminist publishing practices? How can these experimental interventions potentially reform inequalities, streamlining and metrication of academic publishing? The call for publicly funded research at universities to be published open access shifts the major part of research outputs into the digital realm.

  • radical open access as potential to transform the structures of institutional authority and legitimacy?.

  • building of commons-based open access publishing infrastructures for promoting a more diverse, not-for-profit eco-system of scholarly communication
  • values that underpin many of the radical open access community’s experiments in open publishing
  • Problem: OA complicit with neoliberalism’s audit culture of evaluation, measurement, impact and accountability. Open Access arguably has become a “mandate”, a top-down requirement rather than a bottom-up scholar-led movement for change.
  • experiments reclaiming open access from corporate take over (APC - Gold Model, Elsevier & co)
  • exploring how an ethics of care can help to counter the calculative logic (metrification) that permeates academic publishing. (Mattering Press)

  • alt metrics - gaming the system (Marina Frantzen & Punctum Press)

  • “Higher education has a culture problem that is at once historical, structural, and interpersonal”– To confront the toxic culture of higher education HuMetricsHSS Initiative propose a value-based “metric” framework around values such as equity, openness, collegiality, quality, and community, which not only functions as a checkpoint for self-reflection, but also as a starting point for better academic practices and outputs. (Christopher Long, HuMetricsHSS Initiative Michigan State University)
  • Making publishing more diverse and equitable – geographically, but also with respect to issues of class, race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality
  • Nurturing new and historically under-represented cultures of knowledge – those associated with early career, precariously employed and para-academics, or located outside the global North and West?
  • ethical academic publishing: how to ensure everyone is able to have a voice – particularly those writing on niche or avant-garde topics or who are conducting hybrid, multimodal, post-literary forms of research, and who are currently underserved by our profit-focused commercial publishing system.

  • understanding publishing very much as a complex, multi-agential, relational practice

  • What is the potential of new forms of “open cooperativism” in which organisations commit themselves “structurally and legally to the production of common goods (the common good, the commons)”? (Bauwens 2016)

  • Coventry University’s Centre for Disruptive Media (CDM) and the Disruptive Media Learning Lab (DMLL): How is media practice disruptive of and re-performing the way we do scholarly communication and education? How can the Journal of Media Practice reconfigure (the politics of) its own practice? What should a disruptive ‘journal’ of media practice look / sound / feel like?
  • Can open access and open source transform the institution of the university itself?

[Here to be inserted: Closing section paragraph that distills the main concerns from the examples and lead to the next section,ie my experiments.]

Notes (State of the art in this domain, survey of the field)

  1. John Perrault, Some Thoughts on Books as Art, in Artists Books (1973: 15–21) quoted by Tony White in Book 2.0 in Volume 3 Number 2, 2013, page 168. doi: 10.1386/btwo.3.2.163_1
  2. John Baldessari for example writes in 1975: “I enjoy giving books I have made to others. Art seems pure for a moment and disconnected from money. And since a lot of people can own the book, nobody owns it. Every artist should have a cheap line. It keeps art ordinary and away from being overblown.” in Art-Rite (Anon. 1976/1977: 6)
  3. 3.0 3.1 Kostelanetz, originally published in “Exhaustive Parallel Intervals”, Future Press, 1979, reprinted in Joan s (ed), Artists’ Books: a Critical Anthology and Sourcebook, Rochester, New York, Visual Studies Workshop Press, 1993, p.13.
  4. Lucy R. Lippard, ‘The Artist’s Book Goes Public’, in Joan s (ed), Artists’ Books: a Critical Anthology and Sourcebook, Rochester, New York, Visual Studies Workshop Press, 1993, p.45.
  5. ART RITE Magazine 11/12, winter/spring 1975/1976, p.3
  6. Joan Lyons (ed), “Artists’ Books: a Critical Anthology and Sourcebook”, Rochester, New York, Visual Studies Workshop Press, 1993, p8.
  7. Printed Matter founded by Lucy Lippard, Sol Lewitt and… in xxxx, Franklin Furnace, Ulisses Carrion started “Other Books” in Amsterdam, AA Bronson started Art Metropole in Toronto in xxx.
  8. Ed Ruscha letter to John Wilcock, 25 February 1966, The Piracy Collection, London, the archives of Giorno Poetry Systems. Ed Ruscha’s 26 Gasoline Stations book is today traded for 20,000$. >Reference Abebooks:xx
  9. New York Times Special Edition. See documentation New York Times Hoax - The Yes Men Fix The World Interview with Steve Lambert in Fillip Magazine winter 2009:, and Steve Lambert website
  10. See Jess Baines’ text “Free Radicals” about radical Print shops emerging in London in 1968, as DiY sites of political and community activism. Afterall, 28.1.2010
  11. Suzy Mackie and Pru Stevenson, founding members of See Red in a blog post
  12. See also Eva Weinmayr, Library Underground - A reading list for a coming community, in Publishing as Artistic Practice, ed by Annette Gilbert, Sternberg Press 2016.
  13. Marcell Mars, Manar Zarroug, and Tomislav Medak, End-to-End Catalog: Memory of the World, November 26, 2012, https:// end-to-end-catalog/.
  14. “The Public School was initiated in 2007 in Los Angeles in the basement of Telic Arts Exchange. The Public School is a school with no curriculum. It is not accredited, it does not give out degrees, and it has no affiliation with the public school system. It is a framework that supports autodidactic activities, operating under the assumption that everything is in everything.” See
  15. See interview conducted by German artist Cornelia Sollfrank with Sean Dockray and Marcell Mars as part of her research project “Giving what you don’t have”, Postmedialab, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, 2012.
  16. Self-description: “Public Collectors is founded upon the concern that there are many types of cultural artifacts that public libraries, museums and other institutions and archives either do not collect or do not make freely accessible. Public Collectors asks individuals that have had the luxury to amass, organize, and inventory these materials to help reverse this lack by making their collections public. Public Collectors features informal agreements where collectors allow the contents of their collection to be published or exhibited, and permit those who are curious to directly experience the objects in person. Collectors can be based in any geographic location.”
  17. Self-description: “In redefining the concept of a physical library, the Surplus Library on Affect & Economic Exchange operates on the basic assumption that its specific collection of books already exists in the material world: in the homes and private collections of countless individuals. Some of the holdings of this vast and distributed library can become known and accessible through The Surplus Library site. The site develops as the library’s holdings and locations are registered by users.” [1].
  18. Steven A. Knowlton, 'Three Decades since Prejudices and Antipathies: A Study of Changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings', in Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly 40.2, 2005,,
  19. 19.0 19.1
  20. Emily Drabinski, 'Teaching the Radical Catalog' in Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front, K.R. Roberto, Jefferson, N.C., McFarland, 2008, p.195.
  21. Hope A. Olson, 'Sameness and Difference – A Cultural Foundation of Classification', in Library Resources & Technical Services, Vol 45, No 3, Jul 2001, pp. 115-22, 115.
  22. See proposed study rules [here]. École de Recherche Graphique, Brussles