This reminds me of an earlier argument over whether a colorized
version of a film could be considered an instance of the film as a
work. In my mind, that argument came down to a disagreement over
whether the FRBR work is the "true original" of the work or is the
work as an abstract concept.
If a painting considered as a work must include all the aspects of the
original, then the mechanical reproductions will lack properties
inherent to the work. But if the painting as work is considered as an
abstract concept, then both the original painting and the mechanical
reproductions become expressions of that work.
FRBR and RDA are fairly clear that works and expressions are abstract
entities. What's missing from FRBR and RDA are clear ways to indicate
the properties specific to the original of a work without requiring
that all expressions of the work share those properties. In the case
of texts, since "language" is not a property of the work and
"original" is not a property of the expression, it's unclear how one
should indicate that a given textual work was originally written in
English.
Stephen
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Lundgren,Jimmie Harrell
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Good Afternoon,
> This is not my area of expertise, but would it make sense to use the following for those books containing images of many of an artist's paintings, etc.?
> 700 12 artist's name, $e artist. $k Works. $t Selections. $k Facsimiles.
>
> Thanks,
> Jimmie
>
> Jimmie Lundgren
> Cataloging & Metadata Dept.
> George A. Smathers Libraries
> University of Florida
> Gainesville, FL 32611
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] artists' monographs and 700s
>
> The subdivision "Catalogs" does not necessarily mean that the resource includes any reproductions of the artist's' work. In this day and age, chances are a catalog will include some images, but that is not a given.
> And many monographs that include extensive reproductions of the artist's work are not catalogs, because they do not list the holdings of a particular institution.
>
> So "Catalogs" (and related subdivisions such as Private collections, Catalogues raisonnés, and Exhibitions) will help users find material listing works by artists, but not necessarily material that includes images of artists' work.
>
> 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
>
>
>>>> Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]> 11/21/2012 1:23 PM >>>
> I agree. Having both this sort of subject heading AND the author
> access can be theoretically justified, but practically, one is probably enough in the Google-age.
>
> Amy
>
>
> Amy Turner
>
> Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator Duke University Libraries
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 1:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] artists' monographs and 700s
>
> " 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. "
>
> If a work is exclusively or primarily a collection of reproductions of an artists' repertoire, doesn't it get the subject heading: 600:1x:$a [Artist name] $v Catalogs ? ("use the subdivision Catalogs under names of individual artists, craftspersons, families of artists and craftspersons, and corporate bodies for works listing their art works or crafts which are available or located in particular institutions or
> places")
>
> That seems like a more efficient way for users to find collections of artists' works.
>
> --Ben
>
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] artists' monographs and 700s
>
> 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/>
--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
|
