----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Library of Congress has asked ARLIS/NA for our position on some
issues not addressed in the final report of the ALA ALCTS CCS Subject
Analysis Committee Order of Subdivisions Subcommittee. They need to
resolve these issues before implementing the recommendations in the final
report. The Cataloging Advisory Committee has discussed these proposals
at length and has formulated the following response. There are not always
easy solutions that are both good and practical.
Since ARLIS/NA has been discussing these issues for at least
twenty years we have concentrated on the practical in hopes that some
progress will be made.
Since these recommendations have broad implications am posting them to the
ARLIS/NA list. The deadline for comments is October 31. Please forward
any comments to Daniel Starr at [log in to unmask]
The proposals fall into six categories, as follow.
1. Discontinue combined century subdivisions, i.e. no more 17th/18th
centuries.
LC proposal: this would eliminate an exceptional practice; they may need to
request help from us to make this change, that is, "to identify which
century to use in a replacement heading when the dates may not be clear
from a cursory examination of the title or from the assigned
classification."
Discussion: there is some desire for optional combined century
subdivisions, e.g. "19th/20th centuries" for fin-de-siecle works that span
two centuries, but we recognize this is going against the flow of
subdivision simplification and can be handled by assigning two separate
century subdivisions (or just the predominant one)
ARLIS/NA response: We are in agreement and can say that the art community
will help with bibliographic file maintenance, that is to identify which
century to use in the replacement heading
Valid headings:
Art, Modern-17th century
Art, Modern-18th century
Invalid headings:
Art, Modern-17th/18th centuries
2. Art, Modern; Art, Medieval; etc.--do not subdivide geographically
LC proposal: The qualifier "Modern" is used preceding century subdivisions
in headings from fields other than the fine arts, e.g. "Civilization,"
"Philosophy," and "Literature." They would prefer not to consider art
headings in isolation and therefore, "for the present," propose to continue
to use such headings, but to limit there use to general discussions of art
in those time periods that do not focus on specific places.
Discussion:
We would have headings such as "Art, Modern-19th century" for
works that discuss the 19th century in general that do not focus
on specific places. If the work does focus on a specific place
there would not be an "Art, Modern-19th century" assigned. It is
clear that LC is not prepared to do away with "Modern"
completely so we will not progress towards the long desired goal
of headings such as "Art-20th century."
ARLIS/NA response: We are in agreement that the qualifier Modern be
retained, but limited to general discussions of art in the Modern, i.e.
post-Medieval period, that do not focus on specific places. Modern would
still be subdivided by century.
Valid headings:
Art, Modern-19th century
Art, Medieval
Art, Modern
Invalid headings:
Art, Modern-19th century-Italy
Art-20th century
3. Modern period, 1500- ; Medieval period, 500-1500; etc.--how to
subdivide geographically
LC question: Should LC continue to apply geographic subdivisions
to headings of the type, "Art, Modern," that are authorized
for geographic subdivision?
Discussion: This is the most complicated portion of the proposals. For
works on the modern period in one place we agree that headings using
Modernconstructed as in 2 above would retain century
subdivisions. The big question is how to cover comprehensive
works on the modern period in a particular place? Should LC use
headings such as "Art, Modern-Italy"? Or should LC use broad
time period subdivisions after geographical headings such as
"Art, Italian-Medieval period, 500-1500" or "Art, Italian-Modern
period, 1500- "? It is clear that we must choose between
headings of the type "Art, Modern-Italy" and "Art, Italian-Modern
period, 1500- ." LC is not interested in continuing the
exceptional practice of double headings for art subjects. If we
choose the former we lose access under "Art, Italian," but if we
choose the later we may wind up with headings such as "Art,
Italian-Medieval period, 500-1500." LC does leave open the
possibility of establishing "broad time period subdivisions
for the modern period ... to use under headings like Art,
Italian" so maybe we'll also see "Art, Italian-Renaissance
period."
ARLIS/NA response: We agree that LC should remove the
authorization to subdivide broad time divisions geographically;
we would like to continue to work with them on establishing
broad time period subdivisions for the modern period.
Valid headings:
Art, Modern
Art, Italian
Invalid headings:
Art, Modern--Italy
4. Century subdivisions following headings that denote
geographic, ethnic, or religious provenance
LC proposal: Add century subdivisions following headings that
denote geographic, ethnic, or religious provenance and do not
assign paired headings for historical periods. Thus the order of
subdivisions in art headings would match the order used in other
fields and would reduce the number of headings assigned without
loss of significant information.
Discussion: This would eliminate the long-standing (and very
confusing) policy of "doubling" certain art headings.
ARLIS/NA response: We are in agreement that century
subdivisions will be added following geographic subdivisions to
headings in the fine arts that denote geographic, ethnic, or
religious provenance and not assign paired headings
Valid headings:
Afro-American art-Virginia-19th century
Art, American-New York (State)-18th century
Christian art and symbolism-France-20th century.
5. Time period inherent or implied in the heading itself
LC proposal: The recommendation to divide headings that
represent historical styles by century subdivisions even if the
style may be specific to a given century conflicts with a
general principle in LCSH not to use date subdivisions when the
equivalent time period is inherent or implied in the heading
itself.
Discussion: While there is some concern that the time periods
represented by certain art styles may vary from place to place
there is not much loss of access by following LC's simpler
approach.
ARLIS/NA response: We agree with LC's general principle not to
use date subdivisions when the equivalent time period is inherent
or implied in the heading itself.
Valid headings:
Art, Baroque-Italy
Art, Italian-17th century
Invalid headings:
Art, Baroque-Italy-17th century
6. Asian headings
LC proposal: It would be a good idea to align the practices
followed with Asian and Western art as much as possible. "We
would like to pursue this issue with our Asian catalogers and the
CAC."
ARLIS/NA response: We agree that they should be aligned, but
will accept the recommendations of LC's catalogers for Asian
material.
Submitted to the list for Daniel Starr on behalf of the
ARLIS/NA Cataloging Advisory Committee by Sherman Clarke
|