Hi,
Apparently my message didn't pass through on Friday (since it was too
big, apparently due to the citations of E12 and F32 in Martin's email, I
removed them now) so I try it again - best, Regine
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?
Datum: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:33:14 +0200
Von: Stein, Regine <r.st...@fotomarburg.de>
An: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr, frbr-...@ics.forth.gr
Kopie (CC): Gudrun Knaus <gudrun.kn...@fotomarburg.de>
Dear Christian-Emil, dear Martin,
Many thanks for your responses!
Our interest is indeed to understand the whole process of artistic
printing (firstly in early modern Europe), how the idea of a visual work
evolved in the process, what are the relationships between the various
(conceptual and physical) objects involved in the process.
Making a printing plate always starts with a drawing which may either be
a copy of an existing visual work, a painting, or may be intentionally
designed for a print, either by the printmaker or by another artist. In
German language we typically use in documentation the roles "Inventor"
and "Stecher", according to the Latin "INVENIT" and "FECIT" which one
can often find in inscriptions (see e.g. engravings by Marcantonio
Raimondi with inscription "RAPHA URBI INVEN / MAF" - Raphael invented it
/ Marcantonio fecit = Marcantonio made it). Then, the same visual idea
may be realized in several printing plates. Then, we have prints from
different states of this same printing plate, and they are sometimes
considered as a new visual work, sometimes just as modification. In
order to limit the number of copies a printing plate may be scratched.
If we are lucky the printing plate still exists somewhere but obviously
in its last state, and earlier states are only known through the prints.
Then prints may be compiled into series and so on.
As we are dealing with multiples we wonder if FRBRoo is appropriate to
approach this, our questions include:
- Should we consider multiple realizations of the same drawing in
various printing plates as multiple F2 Expression (F24 Publication
Expression) of the same F1 Work (F14 Individual Work)? Or are they all
different works?
- Should we consider different states of one printing plate as F3
Manifestation Product Type?
- How to reflect the different states of the printing plate as "used
specific object" in E12 Production?
- Analysis of what is typically recorded in the documentation in a
museum holding one (or multiple) print(s): which information pertains to
the Work / Expression (e.g. the subject / P62 depicts), which to the
printing plate / F3 Manifestation Product Type (e.g. the state), which
to the actual museum object / F4 Item?
We are grateful for further comments on this, and will certainly be back
to the group as we move on.
Btw, the AAT of course differentiates
"prints (visual works)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041273
- or more specifically "engravings (prints)" ->
http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041340
"printing plates" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300022755
as well as the process of "engraving (printing process)" ->
http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300053225
Best wishes
Regine
Am 30.07.2015 um 21:58 schrieb martin:
Dear Regine,
There has been an implicit discussion in the CRM about prints as
production with particular tools.
see:
E12 Production
[...]
§Rembrandt’s creating of the seventh state of his etching “Woman
sitting half dressed beside a stove”, 1658, identified by Bartsch
Number 197 (E12,E65,E81)
So, the print plate undergoes "transformations" and implies the
creation of an information object being present on the plate(s) and
the prints, or, in more creative techniques, the information content
of the plate is "incorporated" in the prints.
The print plate is "used specific object" in the printing process, but
a specialization of E12 may be adequate to fix the
specific kind of use and its consequences of information transfer to
the copies.
We are also discussing a generalization of
F32 Carrier Production Event
[...]
into industrial production, of cars, tools, coins and whatever.
Artistic prints with limited copies etc may not be regarded as
producing "things of type XXX".
A CRM extension into the world of artitstic printing may be interesting.
If its only about using AAT vocabulary, Christian-Emil's remark's
should be sufficient.
I do not know if the AAT differentiates the plate as museum object
from the copy.
All the best,
Martin
On 30/7/2015 9:48 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
Hi Regine
If I understand AAT correctly, it is a thesaurus and is as such a hierarchy of
concepts and can be seen as a incarnation of a hierarchy under the E55 Type.
In a CRM/FRBRoo context a print is a physical object (one of the items of a
series), for instance a lithography, a paper carrying an image or more. A
lithography would usually be given the AAT type 'print' (or belong to this
type/be a member of the set of objects that can be said to belong to the
hypothetical set of all prints).
This may not be what you have in mind?
Regards,
Christian-Emil
-----Original Message-----
From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Stein,
Regine
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 3:06 PM
To:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr;frbr-...@ics.forth.gr
Cc: Gudrun Knaus
Subject: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?
Hi,
Did anybody go into depth with FRBRoo / CRM modelling or mapping for
prints (visual works) (->http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041273 ;-)) , or can
point us to respective work on this kind of material?
Thanks!
Regine
