Love-hate relationship?

This rather inferior snap is of Jun Mitsuhashi's Rainy Book in the Bite Size exhibition.  It seems at first glance different from his other work.
I liked the statement made in the catalogue:

In Japanese we have a phrase which translates as 'work in the fields when the sun shines, read books at home when it rains'. .... 

I based this piece upon a book.  The inspiration was the bookmarks that I used to mark interesting pages as I read through the book.  The bookmarks are like splashes of rain, reminding me of rainy days.  On the cover, fossils or gemstones are embedded as a reminder of ancient events.

I hope that this piece serves as a 'book mark' to show the intersection between a uniquely Japanese view of nature and my own point of view.

I found that the work stands alone without any explanation, but the statement gives so much more.

Of course this piece brought me again to thinking about the book form as art.  I have said that I have a longterm tussle with this area.  I am so drawn to the form, the feel, the delights of broad aspects of what can be called a book.  I have even from time to time gone so far as to play with actual maquettes such as the one below.

But there is always that niggling question of whether an art book is neither fish nor fowl.  Is the form appropriate for the content?  Does the content merit this form?  This arose again at the sight of the Rainy Book because I wanted to open it, and was it really a book if it could not be opened?  I'm splitting hairs because it could be seen as sufficient that the piece had stimulated curiosity and desire as well as memory of other books etc. within me.  But nonetheless, that niggle keeps returning, and I would call Rainy Book a piece of sculpture and not a book.