• Overspark@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    That’s just wrong. If you’re worried about portability get an e-reader, don’t butcher up works of art.

    • Orygin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think most e-readers will stop working if you cut them in half to be more portable. Books still have the upper hand on this

    • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      No works of art were hurt for this. Mass printed paperback spines being damaged doesn’t hurt the words inside or the hundreds of thousands of other copies. Everyone should feel free to write on, highlight, and cut apart mass printed books, because the actual object itself was never the point.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yeah, rare, old, and otherwise inaccessible books should be protected from random destruction, but there’s a huge difference between destroying a copy of infinite jest and a copy of something that’s at risk of not being accessible to someone by that copy being destroyed. And destroying either for art is wildly different from destroying them to keep someone from accessing it.

        I collect books in a category that are stigmatized and rare, specifically related to queer and kink topics. These are topics that have been mass burned before. But even better than getting into fetishizing the object made of paper is to help get books at risk of inaccessibility to be archived and spread.

    • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Works of art? I mean, the words in the book, of course, but surely not the medium itself, these look like those budget $15 editions that are mass printed on toilet paper…

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I mean, if you had like a hand bound copy or rare out of print book or something like that this sentiment makes sense, but if it’s just some abundant mass produced edition, I’m not so sure. Surely the artistry there is in the words, which aren’t damaged and exist in other copies anyway, rather than the cheap machine made physical medium.

      • Overspark@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        To me it’s just disrespectful to damage a book, regardless of which physical form it has. Paperbacks falling apart when they’re worn out are OK, that’s basically showing how much they were loved. But taking scissors to them is still almost as bad as taking scissors to a first edition hardback.