Colleagues,
Members of the ARLIS/NA Cataloging Advisory Committee (CAC) and Friends--nearly 20 of us--met virtually on Friday 1/18 to discuss RDA, artist monographs, and related issues. Thanks to Guadalupe and ARLIS/NA for providing the GoToMeeting platform for our
use.
For background on our discussions, see the following sections of RDA: 6.2.2.10; 25.1 and its LC-PCC PS (hereafter, PS); 6.27.3 and its PS -- and the following documents: PCC/NACO's Uniform Titles FAQ, LC's Art Catalogs Powerpoint, and RDA Training Module
3. Contact me if you want links.
1.
The main outcome is that we are working towards writing a proposal to revise the PS for RDA 25.1 to add "artist monographs" or "exhibition catalogs" or "art catalogs" (specific term to be determined) to the list of exclusions to the rule in this section
instructing catalogers to add a conventional collective title (hereafter, CCT) for related works in compilations. This CCT normally takes the form of this example:
Matisse, Henri, 1889-1954. Works. Selections.
CAC, in general, feels that the vast majority of art publications are compilations of, or commentary on, artist's (or artists') works. This renders the addition of such CCTs, to nearly all our catalog records, to be of questionable value to the FRBR end-user
tasks of Find-Identify-Select-Obtain.
2.
Part of our discussion revolved around whether the artist of an illustrated artist monograph has an author or subject relationship to the monograph. We would expect the "normal" user of such a monograph to use the illustrations as support for the textual
discussion [perhaps making this fall under the category of "commentary" and/or compilation"]. Still, the illustrations are of works BY the artist and would it therefore make sense to have an added author access point or a subject access point like:
Matisse, Henri, 1889-1954. Works. Selections -- Reproductions
or (perhaps more accurately):
Matisse, Henri, 1889-1954. Works. Reproductions. Selections
In general the feeling was that using "Reproductions," while technically more accurate, is not an acceptable option.
2a.
Another strain of this discussion was a general movement away from using the artist as "main entry" (which no longer exists in RDA as a concept) or "creator" of the resource. Artists are rarely responsible for creating the book, article, etc. that compiles
their works (which are often compiled after they are created), so in these cases there is no theoretical justification for using an artist in the MARC 1xx field.
3.
CAC and Friends are also concerned about the form and value of several Name Authority Records (NARs) that have recently been created (presumably) to support these CCTs. These CCTs and their related NARs include the medium of the works compiled in place
of "Works." Examples:
# 2012051761
100 1# Jex, Garnet W., $d 1895-1979. $t Watercolor paintings. $k Selections
# 2012043365
100 1# Baselitz, Georg, $d 1938- $t Prints. $k Selections
PCC interim policy states that catalogers are not to make NARs for CCTs, but RDA leaves it to cataloger judgment. CAC thinks that these CCTs and NARs--while it's interesting to think about access points including a particular medium--would create more
confusion for users as well as a potential explosion in the number of NARs/CCTs produced when cataloging art catalogs.
As always, feel free to ask if you have questions. If you’d like to join us for the next round, let me know.
Best regards,
Dan
Dan Lipcan
Assistant Museum Librarian for Systems and Special Projects
Thomas J. Watson Library
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
1000 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10028
212.650.2982
http://library.metmuseum.org/
