[MD] Review of 'The Truth About Art'.

Dan Glover daneglover at gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 20:14:17 PDT 2014


Ant,

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> FYI Arlo & Dan:
>
> "TTAA followed a standard American book design, used by university presses, down to the choice of font and size of leading. It makes for perfectly comfortable reading. And while a coated paper would have printed the images with a greater tonal range, they reproduce perfectly adequately for a book driven by an argument, rather than by the pictures."
>
> "What Warr missed was the whole thesis of the book, which is summarised in the initial note 'To the Reader'. She used the word 'quality' only once, and that was to refer to the low-quality paper!"
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Patrick Doorly

Hello Ant,
Thank you for this. I actually ordered Patrick Doorly's book (I know,
I know, I said I wasn't going to but after talking with you and Arlo
about it I just had to have a look) last night ($25 paperback version
from Amazon) and I am greatly excited to soon be to reading it. Should
be here around the end of the month.

Thanks again,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com

>
> (October 24th 2014)
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR
> <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>> [Ant]
>> Remember that Patrick Doorly (the author of TTAA) was primarily aiming his book towards an academic audience (I guess fine art critics and philosophers mainly) so a vanity publisher such as CreateSpace (whose academic credibility is basically zero) was not an option open to him.  It's the finely honed arguments in Patrick's book which give it, its intellectual quality and its these arguments that I ask the reader of this post to be primarily concerned with.
>>
>> [Dan]
>> In other words (and forgive me if I am translating this wrongly), folk like me have no reason to be reading Patrick Doorly's book. Only those who are academically trained in the fine arts and philosophy would have any use for it. It is a text book.
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> I don't think "academic" here should be a point of contention Dan (*I* think you are highly academic).
>
> [Dan]
> Thank you, Arlo.I don't think it should be a point of contention
> either which was basically the gist of my reply to Ant.
>
> [Arlo]
>> Sadly, textbooks do tend to be very expensive, even David Grange's text (which is mostly text) sold for $110 upon publication (I see the price is down to $69 on Amazon). So authors who publish in this format may do everything they can to keep costs down. How many 'non-academics' do you think will shell out $110 for Granger's book? And yet I'd argue its incredibly important. So $25 for Doorley's book as it is, or $110+ for the book with high-quality print and hi-res color images? Which do you think will reach more readers?
>
> [Dan]
> Exactly... but what is the point of Patrick Doorly's book? I thought
> it was aimed at anyone with an interest in art and quality and of
> course Robert Pirsig fits the bill on both counts. If the book is
> indeed aimed at an academic audience that will leave a lot of us out.
>
>>[Arlo]
>> And, we can't really deny that there is a symbolic capital to be had with the publisher imprint. Right or wrong, it has meaning. Many academic authors are required, for tenure, to publish using certain 'respected' or 'established' publishing venues. Having your book published by "Oxford University Press" (for example) establishes symbolic capital for both the author and the argument. Whether this is wholly good or bad, whether it is something that we should reject outright or accept, it is a fact for those publishing within their academic tenure.
>
> [Dan]
> That makes sense and I appreciate that there are journals and
> publishing houses positioned to serve academic authors. But aren't we
> going beyond content here just as the reviewer of Doorly's book did?
>
>>
>> [Dan]
>> CreateSpace is different than a vanity publisher in that no upfront purchase is necessary.
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> Another consideration is that often authors (academic or otherwise) are provided with some compensation when their manuscript is accepted. Pirsig, for example, worked off a Guggenheim grant.
>
> [Dan]
> Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought the Guggenheim came after
> the success of ZMM. I'm pretty sure he was teaching full time while
> writing ZMM. I seem to recall that he worked out of a flophouse in
> Minnesota from 2am to 6am before going to his day job. Too, I read
> somewhere (I think it was in the same ZMM interview) that Robert
> Pirsig received a $3000 advance for that book and was told by the
> publisher not to expect any more royalties from it.
>
> [Arlo]
>>Now, I'm not sure if that specific grant conferred certain rights to the publisher (and away from Pirsig), but often authors need compensation (even in the form of work-release) while they are writing.
>
> [Dan]
> "Guggenheim Fellowships are grants to selected individuals made for a
> minimum of six months and a maximum of twelve months. Since the
> purpose of the Guggenheim Fellowship program is to help provide
> Fellows with blocks of time in which they can work with as much
> creative freedom as possible, grants are made freely. No special
> conditions attach to them, and Fellows may spend their grant funds in
> any manner they deem necessary to their work. The United States
> Internal Revenue Service, however, does require the Foundation to ask
> for reports from its Fellows at the end of their Fellowship terms. "
>
> http://www.gf.org/about-the-foundation/frequently-asked-questions/
>
> [Arlo]
>> I do not know the specifics of Doorly's publishing contract, but there may have been important and unavoidable reasons (in addition to academic capital) that he went with a publisher rather than self-publishing.
>
> [Dan]
> I suspect so too.
>


More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list