 |
 |
I was asked to summarize the responses to my query: "I need a quick, gut response from those of you still working with these databases: which has the least overlap with Art Abstracts and Art Index Retrospective (which are not yet on the chopping block): International Bibliography of Art or Art Bibliographies Modern? Usage for both is about the same, but the cost of IBA is about half of ABM. Your input would be much appreciated." Thank you all for the input from arlis-l. Six of the 7 responses suggested that ABM would be more useful than IBA: 1. ArtBib Modern has much deeper coverage (thus the heftier price): 1974-present versus 2008-present. They also index different types of content (formats & subjects). If contemporary art is core for you, I'd say keep ArtBib Modern! 2. I'd make the decision based on the programs that I'm supporting. If it's primarily an art historical program with an emphasis on ancient-19th century, I'd keep IBA. If it's studio programs or programs with a heavy emphasis on 20-21st century, I'd keep ABM. Personally, I think ABM covers more unique material and has a larger database of records but I'm still getting to know IBA so that's likely a factor. 3. For me its Art Bibliographies Modern because our core collections are in modern and contemporary art and it includes citations for exhibition catalogs. I looked into Proquest's IBA briefly last year when I was looking into EBsco's Art Source, two different things really but I wasn't that taken with IBA then. It is unclear to me about what is included in IBA anymore and how it is indexed - I don't particularly put my trust in Proquest for the arts actually. That's my gut. 4. ABM gets many more relevant hits for "modern" art than AA/AIR--in my opinion. There is really very little content in IBA at this point--only about 5 years of citations as I recall. ABM has been indexing for more like 40-50 years. Another comparative advantage of ABM is that it indexes exhibition catalogs and other publication types--not just journals and a few dissertations (as AA/AIR does). AA/AIR is the primary essential...but if your population researches 20th century art in any depth, I'd say keep ABM as a second. 5. I dropped ABM and kept IBA since it, in theory, picks up where BHA left off. I think AA and AIR do a decent job of covering contemporary art so I felt okay about dropping ABM. 6. Based on the relatively scant coverage of IBA (2008 or so only) vs. ABM (70s on), I think ABM is the no brainer to keep, esp. if you are supporting research from early Modern (meaning pre-Impressionism) to current. I can't imagine life without ABM. But then, I could not imagine life without a robust BHA either... 7. This is just anecdotal (and I hope accurate) but I find essays in exhibition catalogs in Artbibliographies Modern that I haven't elsewhere. Always thought that a plus. You probably have plenty of responses. Hard to say, but I would guess that ABM has the least overlap. We have IBA, ABM and Art Abstracts. Kathy Zimon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~