I agree that the Harper's publisher may have assumed many of the woodcuts would be removed and may have even printed the full page spreads for people to put on their walls. Irrelevant to publisher's intent (which I don't know), it was reader fashion to remove the woodcuts. I also agree that cutting up a hardbound book is commonly perceived differently than cutting out clippings from yesterday's newspaper. But many would say taking a scissors today to a complete Harper's Weekly is destruction and the magazine should be left in whole-- irrelevant to what the original publisher intended or subscribers thought.
It's not a black and white topic and things can be viewed from different angles and sentiments.
Last edited by drcy; 02-28-2014 at 12:14 PM.
|