
An Artist Is Building a Parthenon of Banned Books - happy-go-lucky
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/artist-building-parthenon-banned-books-180960923/?no-ist
======
roywiggins
They're just as unreadable stacked up into a monument as they are hidden away.
Books aren't useful if they're nobody reads them. This seems like it's missing
the point.

~~~
gph
Read the article. Says quite clearly the monument will be on display for 100
days, then they will dismantle it and hand the books out to the public.
Exactly as she did in 1983 in Argentina.

------
Theodores
I doubt that these will be truly banned books. Books that were once banned in
some part of the world for some crime of denouncing the ruling elite will make
the cut. They would not have the courage or contacts for truly banned books
where no reporter announced them as banned.

I do not like seeing vinyl records used as pot plant holders, even stuck to
the wall is wrong unless framed. With CDs I do not feel the same compassion,
if someone has some CDs on a bit of string to scare seagulls off their land I
am fine with that (even if I side with the seagulls). Books are a bit like
this for me, they deserve respect beyond being mere consumer items. So using
books to make anything other than a library feels wrong to me. Plus they will
not be in readable form at the base of a tower. So there is some destruction
of books going on here, albeit with a different spectacle to what the Nazis
did.

Banned books are going to be anywhere but this 'banned books of the past'
pile. It draws attention away rather than toward the really good stuff.

~~~
moftz
Unless the book is some rare or antique print where the physical copy carries
some intrinsic value worth more than the actual paper its printed on, then I
have no issue with using a copy of a book in a artistic but destructive
fashion. If its a book that is highly regarded, there will be some sort of
digital copy or other prints available. If it's some pulp romance novel that
was printed once 20 years ago and has been in a used book store since then,
its not really a loss if its destroyed. Of course we should preserve data to
the best extent but some data isn't worth the medium its stored on. Think of
every picture you've taken. Are they all priceless to you? Could you stand to
lose some and still be happy with life? I could go back and cull 90% of the
pictures I've taken into a core set and not worry. I don't have to since
storage space is dirt cheap. Bookshelf space isn't. A library or used
bookstore can only hold so many books before they are giving away stuff no one
reads or just tossing them in the recycle bin.

Banned books have some sort of special value to our culture. They are usually
trending books that become even more popular when some school district or
public library says "We are banning book X." there will be tons of prints
available to keep up with the demand. There will be digital copies too. So
what if one copy ends up in some guy's art project? That wasn't the only copy
and definitely won't be the last either.

I don't keep many books on my shelf. They are typically expensive textbooks
that have some condensed knowledge that would be hard to obtain elsewhere.
Check out the yearly lists of top banned books:
[http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10](http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10)
Do you think it would be hard to obtain a copy of the Bible? or Fifty Shades
of Grey? You could run to any used bookstore and pickup many of these books
for dirt cheap for some dumb project.

But actual censored novels? Those are a rare find and typically don't have
many prints unless they have been leaked out of a totalitarian country or
published freely after the previous govt falls. But those aren't what this
project is using.

------
tempodox
I like this project. And while I'm an avid user of digitized books myself, it
reminds me of the importance that physical books (like, printed on paper) have
for the freedom of thought. There is no DRM for ink on paper and nobody can
ever really control who reads what.

~~~
pklausler
> There is no DRM for ink on paper

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography)

~~~
tempodox
You can do some form of tracking with that, but not DRM. A product would have
to be _digital_ in the first place for DRM to apply.

------
MK999
Banned books are not as interesting as suppressed books. A banned book gets a
lot of publicity.

~~~
mdaniel
I know I can search for those terms, but can you say what you feel is the
difference between a suppressed and a banned book?

~~~
MK999
I don't think it is easily searchable, that would defeat the point.

One example of a suppressed book would be when the North American distributor
of said books gets two shots to the back of the head. Another would be when
its taken out of printing after a mere 3000 copies even though its author is a
famous and well respected European professor. Another would be that its not
translated into English even though it's by one of the most celebrated authors
in the world. Another example would be when the author is thrown into prison
under false murder charges because he's ruffling the wrong feathers. All true
stories, to discover the books and the authors is an exercise for the reader.

If you look at the banned book list its usually because it offends Christian
morality,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challeng...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_United_States),
but offending social morals and offending (elements of) the power structure
are very different.

~~~
SnakePlissken
A good answer for the distinction of suppressed inre: banned, but your post as
a contribution to the discussion at large is weakened by the "wise mystic who
won't reveal the whole truth for the good of the student" routine. You might
as well speak in riddles.

I'm fairly certain your second example is Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley,
although he was an American teaching at Georgetown. Your first might be Dark
Alliance by Gary Webb (if one defines "distributor" very loosely), but I
haven't a clue on the last two. They don't trigger anything in memory and the
details are too vague for a fruitful search. Be a good sport and elaborate.

~~~
MK999
Tragedy and Hope is a fine guess, but I was thinking of an Italian professor.

My point is just there is another level of control, not banning books but
silencing or suppressing them (or pick some other term that fits better)

~~~
SnakePlissken
I understand and agree with your point ("a good answer", as I said). My point
is that your position is weakened (for the individual you responded to and all
other readers) by not naming the books and authors in question.

Anyone not previously familiar with suppression as it is practiced would be
more readily swayed with something they can sink their teeth into and
investigate. What you've given them instead are vague and unverifiable claims
that, without elaboration, carry the hint of paranoid fancy rather than
serious conspiracy(which risks unjust dismissal by someone could have
otherwise been informed).

Let's use my first guess of Tragedy and Hope as an example. Consider the
following:

-pedigree of Quigley: History professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service who taught Bill Clinton and an entire generation of diplomats

-contents of the book: macrohistorical view of Anglo-American governmental, financial and intellectual organizations and how they shaped history

-manner of its suppression: first editition pulled, subsequent editions published without the passages detailing the establishment of the BIS backed by private bankers and the existence of what Quigley called the "Round Table Groups"

These combine to paint a clear (and researchable) picture of what you alluded
to: books not being banned, but having their impact diminished, because they
challenge or critique the power structure.

------
vacri
> _In Ancient Greece, no building symbolized democracy and beauty like the
> Parthenon_

As an aside, when will we stop wistfully speaking about ancient Greek
(Athenian) democracy? You know, the democracy where anyone could vote, as long
as they weren't a slave, weren't a woman, and owned land?

How anyone can idealise a 'democracy' where some people were the property of
other people is puzzling in the modern age. Academic interest, sure, but
nostalgia?

~~~
woodruffw
We remember Athenian democracy for its _principle_ , not its actualization.

Aristotle thought that you had to be a large-muscled man to be truly virtuous.
Just about every European Enlightenment philosopher had something nasty to say
about "savages" or women. Look past their period-specific blind spots, and
their _theories_ continue to hold weight.

~~~
vacri
You can say that about anything. Communism is great, in _theory_ , but its
actualization sucks. Having nobility make all your decisions is great in
_theory_ , but not in practice. Benevolent dictatorships are great in _theory_
, but there's no clean way to dislodge them when they start to lose their
benevolence. Theocracies, tribal elders, meritocracies...

I mean, what is the difference between a council of nobility and a council of
land-holding Athenian citizens, where citizenship is an inherited trait? Is
there all that much of a difference if 10% of the population gets a say
instead of 2%? Not to mention that if you only get a say when you've inherited
your title and also own land, then that really starts to sound like a noble
class anyway.

Handwaving away "yeah, but slaves, women, poor people was just a thing of the
period" just isn't good enough. I'm reminded of Stephen Fry's roar in his
Catholicism debate, when one speaker defended past misdeeds by the Catholic
church as 'well, no-one at the time knew any better', to which Fry responded
'Well, what then are you _for_?'. It's all very well to have a feelgood core
of a theory, but you have to have the execution of it as well. Lots more has
been added to democracy since the early days; it wasn't some sort of golden
period of the common person.

~~~
ue_
>Communism is great, in theory, but its actualization sucks.

If I had a nickel for every time someone said this, I'd invest in stocks and
shares and become a capitalist. It's such a tiring trope, like an old version
of "all the parties are as bad as each other". Infinely repeatable, and
everyone agrees by default. Wonderful!

------
swayvil
Socially relevant is a poor substitute for aesthetic.

------
return0
Even as ruins, the Parthenon is very beautiful compared to this mess. I
understand the message of the artist but wonder if this piece of art is really
timeless. Who knows, maybe she 'll bring it up to date - replace the books
with routers.

