Short defense of Asian self-publishing

MCV MCV

TAG / DATE
Single Post

< >
Post 255 of 399

2012, Oct 08
Short defense of Asian self-publishing

Somehow $12 and zine do not go hand-in-hand, nor do $12 and Edition of 500, nor do zine and Edition of 500. Fewer, and actual, spreads would have been more convincing. Both reinforce the trivial manner in which zines have been imported to Asia as commercial opportunity rather than as cultural vehicle.ⁱ

ⁱ This generalization will be addressed in reviews to follow. To frame this argument, refer to the stated price for Mok’s ichikawadaimon on Panorama.jp’s webshop (¥3150, current conversion is US$38 v. the $10 for which it was acquired directly from the photographer through her Etsy shop). Or to Zines Mate’s (a Tokyo-based organization responsible for Tokyo Art Book Fair) call for “Asian Zines” along with its outcome and their distribution fees and terms.

From a r-e-v-i-e-w ¹ of Ye Rin Mok’s “28 Pictures”

This is not a sound argument, to put it mildly, and the author knew it; thus the retreat and promise of more evidence down the line. Ah, but it’s six months later, he hasn’t written again for the site, and it still remains a generalization of, well, continental proportions to claim that “zines have been imported to Asia as commercial opportunity rather than as cultural vehicle.” Even if some opportunists do exist on this continent—the largest of all continents, as it happens—there are, indeed, Asian people who create zines for cultural rather than economic reasons ². In any case, what exactly is a zine anyway, such that it should not be sold for $12 or be published in an edition of 500? More to the point, why would any non-skater make such a zealous attempt to defend its honor in 2012?

I can’t comment on the evil terms that Zine’s Mate proposes because they are not published on their site. Panorama is indeed selling “Ichikawadaimon” for ¥3000. Still, a quick glance at the front page of the site ³ shows that they’re not marking up other books drastically, if at all. The book is no longer available anywhere else, and it’s hardly only Japanese people—excuse me, hardly only Asians!—who sell books (and zines ⁴) above their retail price.

The cover of Sloth In My Head's second zine, ¥300

Zine’s Mate’s own Tokyo Art Book Fair ⁵ happened just a couple of weeks ago, and while there may have been some people looking to make a fast yen, there were also plenty of others selling their publications for cheap (¥300 or less). Sloth In My Head ⁶ is a so-called “endless zine project.” The zines are printed well, in color, at an almost unwieldy size larger than A3. They sell for ¥300. Meanwhile, Ye Rin Mok herself had a new zine on display at the fair, published with Tokyo-based Booklet Press. “Ceramics Class” ⁷ costs ¥650 and is printed in an edition of 100, which hardly seems like the stuff of commercial opportunity.

http://r-e-v-i-e-wdotorg/zines-photo/28-pictures-ye-rin-mok/

http://parapera.net/: There are too many examples to list, but Parapera collects a few

http://shop.pnrm.jp/

http://www.harpersbooks.com/searchResults.php?action=search&pageName=Search&titleField=provoke: Provoke, the original zine!

http://zinesmate.org/lang/en/the-tokyo-art-book-fair

http://sloth-inmy-head.tumblr.com/

http://bookletpress.org/author/yrmok.html

Tags (0)

Ethan has posted a response. After revising his original statement, we can agree on the main point, as well as on a couple of other things.

Posted by Ari / October 11, 2012 at 7:52 pm:

Re: this & Ethan’s response

Regardless of ZineMate’s intent (“commercial opporunity” … and not that I don’t sympathize with your concerns), they are not kidnapping zines and holding them at ransom. The choice is with the artist/s – who are taking a loss out of their pocket to acquire that service of what is ideally – wider exposure. I’m also interested in the thought that in the spirit of zines being a “cultural vehicle”, that the artist taking a loss is a concern. Comparatively, is it not like artists who hire gallery spaces to exhibit their works with no expectation of return?

Somewhat like iTunes (which I don’t use as I don’t agree with their terms either, nevertheless) commercial opportunity with zine’s to facilitate convenience has been identified and moved upon. I am oblivious to the issue that zine’s should be a “cultural vehicle” and not a “commercial opportunity” (this is what you two are getting at no? 😀 ). I fully support the notion that zine’s are a perfect ‘vehicle’ for good willed artists but I cannot find fault or any issue with those who pursue commercial interests (especially as the artists subjected themselves to whatever terms). Both posts show that [artist willing] these zine’s can be had at “cultural vehicle” prices with all your pocket money going where its due provided you do your research.

Is the zine, rather those who create them, standing by the belief that it should be above commercialisation? I mean absolutely no offence to anyone (really, none) but that whole notion just seems like the self-righteousness of self-publishers.

Posted by Dan / October 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm:

We are all in in murky waters here, because we don’t know what we mean by “zine.” (I asked the question seriously!) 20 years ago, we might have been able to loosely understand by this word some kind of photocopied publication from the underground. Now it can describe all kinds of printed matter, and this makes it a little silly to make dogmatic statements about what is or isn’t a zine. Needless to say the same thing goes for “culture.”

Still, even accounting for different understandings of “zine” and “culture,” Ethan’s original statement is not true in the blanketed sense that he wrote it (or, to be fair: that I read it). In his follow-up post, he’s altered this statement slightly to say that Asian zines are only as bad as everyone else. This seems reasonable. Still, neither of us has really addressed how bad this badness is, and what it means for zine producers in the sense that you, Ari, are talking about. Questions abound.

(Ethan points out that the Zine’s Mate terms are actually online: it’s a 50/50 split, with the participant paying shipping. That’s pretty similar to DAP terms.)

-->