Error during command authentication.

All well and good, the reasoning is clearly explained, but this approach makes it highly impractical to employ subject headings to help identify the use of/satirization of/allusions or references to Mickey Mouse or Popeye or any Disney character (for a few examples) in the art of others, unless one already knows the name of the artist doing the alluding/reinterpreting/satirizing. Doesn’t it?

Kathy Edwards

Reference & Collection Development Librarian

Emery A. Gunnin Architecture Library

112 Lee Hall

Clemson University

Clemson, SC 29634

864.656.4289

[log in to unmask]

Hi, all,

                At LC, we have been having a discussion regarding the decision about Popeye (Fictitious character) in art.  For your information, I am posting this full explanation of the decision.

               On December 15, 2010 the Minutes of the Weekly Meeting were published with the following decision:

                Popeye (Fictitious character) in art

                                Popeye is a cartoon character and is thus intrinsically artistic.  The heading Popeye (Fictitious character) should be applied to the work being cataloged.  The proposal was not approved.

                This decision was based upon the general principle, held throughout LCSH, that a heading that inherently represents a discipline should not be modified, qualified, or subdivided by a phrase or term that reiterates the discipline.  For example, headings that are inherently legal are not subdivided by --Law and legislation (examples: Abuse of rights, Bioterrorism).  Regarding fictitious characters, this principle is stated in the Subject Headings Manual, H 1610, 5.b.:

b.  Works about the character.  Assign a heading without further subdivision to general works on a fictitious character.

For works limited to specific media, use the heading with an appropriate qualifying phrase such as ... in art, ... in literature, ... in mass media.

Exception:  Do not use ... in literature for literary characters. Use the phrase ... in literature only for characters borrowed from other media, for example, Snoopy (Fictitious character) in literature.

                The logical extension of this instruction is that Snoopy (Fictitious character) is borrowed from art, therefore the heading Snoopy (Fictitious character) in art  would not be appropriate.  Likewise, the existing headings Mickey Mouse (Fictitious character) in art and Donald Duck (Fictitious character) in art are not appropriate and should be cancelled.

                The instruction in H 1610, 5.b., also explains that general works on a fictitious character should have the heading assigned without further subdivision.  Therefore, a work about Mickey in the art of Marcel Duchamp would have headings:

                600 10  Duchamp, Marcel, ‡d 1887-1968 ‡x Themes, motives.

                650   0   Mickey Mouse (Fictitious character)

                I hope that this full explanation is useful.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments.

Libby Dechman

Sr. Cataloging Policy Specialist

Policy and Standards Division

Library of Congress

Washington, D.C. 20540

[log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask] For information about joining ARLIS/NA see: http://www.arlisna.org/join.html Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc) to [log in to unmask] ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance: http://lsv.arlisna.org Questions may be addressed to list owner (Judy Dyki) at: [log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~