As someone who has an architectural degree, worked in an architect’s office and created all sorts of architectural drawings, I feel obliged to point out that most architects would probably disagree. Certainly, the architects and consulting engineers whose stamps are on the drawings are subsequently "responsible" for the actual building in the legal sense, in ways that can be more serious than libel or plagiarism. You might want to get the opinion of a practitioner or spend some time in an office. To me, this seems tantamount to saying that the literary author is only the “author” of drafts produced by his or her own hands, while the published work is the creation of a publisher, editor, proofreaders, clerks, press operators, bookbinders, etc. This is, of course, true, but it seems a departure and unnecessary complication. Everybody knows that the cinematic auteur is not the sole creator, but usually takes the credit for the entire army needed to bring the work to fruition. That doesn’t mean one transcribes the entire credit crawl into a catalog record. If you had different components, such as treatments, screenplays, story boards, etc,, those are different genres; the same with the various steps in the architectural process.
I don’t see what the point is of creating author-title entries for architectural or engineering works at all.
I thought what is being described here is a published compilation (a catalog) of Pei’s works. If that is the case, then it probably has some sort of title page, and the individual buildings are subject added entries. Would you make author-title records at the chapter level for anything but an anthology?
If on the other hand, one has a set of drawings or an individual drawing, then a number of things apply. First, except for some concept sketches, it is unlikely that any of them are actually created by Pei. If there is a presentation rendering, it is probably done by a professional renderer and signed like the artwork that it is. If it is a working drawing or working drawing set, then it has actually been created by one or more drafters, whose initials are probably somewhere in the title block or revisions list. It will have a title block that is the equivalent of a title page, including things like a drawing number. In such a case, the “author” would be the corporate name of Pei’s office (from the title block), and the title would come from the title block also. What is the point of an author-title combination? If a collection of drawings and project files from an architect’s office is described archivally, then the corporate title of the office is the author/creator, and the individual projects are subject added entries. Why complicate things further?
There are the added issues of the fact that large projects go through many variations, and some are never executed. I have pointed out before that the names of buildings change with their owners, so the name of the work on the title block may not be how the building is “known” fifty years later on.
This strikes me as another case is which a mode of thought that has evolved to deal with books over the last century has a hard time describing non-literary realities.
Hagley Museum and Library
My reaction matches Robert’s. What you are trying to describe is an architectural drawing, whose title happens to match the name of the building that the drawing is associated with.
My opinion: the architect is the creator of the plan, not the building itself. So if you have I.M. Pei's architectural drawings for the Louvre pyramid, the AAP you give below could be correct (depending on what the preferred title turns out to be). The
plans/designs are not the same work as the building itself, so it would be appropriate to have two different AAPs for those two different entities.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 8:51:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Name/titles for an archtect
Could someone explain to me how to establish name/title authorized access points for an architect?
An AAP for an aggregate, such as an architect’s catalog, is fairly easy to establish (Works. Selections, etc.), but individual works contained in such a compilation seem to fall into a different category of entities, because names of buildings (structures, etc.) are independent NACO or SACO entities. For example, among I.M. Pei’s works,
John F. Kennedy Library (NACO, LCCN n 50082519)
Louvre Pyramid (SACO, not established yet)
For a compilation of selected works by I.M. Pei, we could assign a conventional title as follows:
100 1 Pei, I. M., $d 1917-
240 1 0 Works. $ Selections (qualifier)
But what about “giv[ing] an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work in the compilation?” How are we supposed to construct name/titles for his individual works? Would the following AAPs be valid?
700 12 Pei, I. M., $d 1917- $t John F. Kennedy Library
700 12 Pei, I. M., $d 1917- $t Louvre Pyramid
If artistic or creative conceptions are considered “works,” then “J.F.K Library” or “Louvre Pyramid” as named entities of Pei’s works would stand as such. Or, in order to make them distinct from the “completed” buildings, should we give them each a qualifier? If so, what would be a good qualifier to use?
P.S. “PCC recommends providing a contents note (no limit on number of works in the contents note unless burdensome). Give an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work in the compilation. Additional access points for other related works may also be included at the discretion of the cataloger. See section above for elements used to identify works and expressions.” (page 18, BIBCO
Standard Record (BSR) RDA Metadata Application Profile).