I think our discomfort with this relates to the fact that images/visual
surrogates don't fit comfortably into the FRBR model that underlies RDA.
When the image of the art object is done by photomechanical or digital
means, it seems absurd to treat it as either an expression or
manifestation of the object. An expression implies some artistic or
intellectual contribution, which is clearly not the case, while a
manifestation implies that the original is preserved, and only the
carrier is different. This, too, is clearly not the case: a visual
surrogate, no matter how faithful, involves a major loss of the
essential qualities of the original (contrast this with a reproduction
of a textual work, which provides a much more accurate, one might say
lossless, capture of the original). Yet it seems equally absurd to treat
a visual surrogate as a related work, since it is so derivative of the
original.
There is value to allowing users to search for material that includes
images of an artist's work, and collocating this material, but there
needs to be some other way to do this. Attaching this heading to a
monograph feels wrong; it seems more like a heading you would attach to
a group record for the contents of a museum gallery that contained
several works by an artist. The best I can come up with is:
Artist. Works. Images/Reproductions/Visual surrogates (nothing quite
works)
Artist. Works. Selections. Images/Reproductions/Visual surrogates
And for individual works:
Artist. Title. Image/Reproduction/Visual surrogate
Perhaps the Thanksgiving meal will induce better ideas (unless it
produces only torpor).
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: [log in to unmask]
Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now
on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org
>>> Penny Baker <[log in to unmask]> 11/21/2012 8:39 AM >>>
I agree with Anne -- we'd need a pretty good argument to justify
supplying "works selections" in the case of artists monographs...
Coyote, Wile E. (Wile Ethelbert), nemesis of Bugs Bunny. Works.
Selections.
Penny Baker
Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute
________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on
behalf of Anne Champagne [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] artists' monographs and 700s
Actually, it's not the $e that concerns us. Rather, it's the addition
of "$t Works. $k Selections" to a personal name heading because a book
includes images of an artist's work (That type of book would represent
about 99% of our collection.) The uniform title "Works Selections" means
nothing to our user community. Even in a post-MARC world, I'm having a
hard time imaging how it could be useful. What am I missing?
Thanks again.
Anne Champagne
Art Institute of Chicago
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mark K. Ehlert
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Anne Champagne <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
wrote:
Recently, and more frequently, I've been seeing the following type of
700 in RDA records for artists' monographs:
700 12 artist's name, $e artist. $k Works. $t Selections.
Presumably this access point is justified by Chapter 6, but can someone
please help me understand how it's useful?
One rationale might that there's nowhere else in the present bib record
nor in the related work's (eventual?) authority record to post the
specific relationship between the creator and the work.
Slipping a designator in the access point itself--despite the legality
of the $e under MARC--isn't justified by the instructions on building
AAPs following RDA 6.27ff..
--
Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
Coordinator University of Minnesota
Digitization, Cataloging & 15 Andersen Library
Metadata Education (DCME) 222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
|
