Talking about creators: One thing I find very puzzling is the treatment
of collections in a museum. Maybe I only have these problems because the
German rules for main entry for corporate bodies are completely
different from the Anglo-American tradition. So, perhaps you can help me
here.
Bowman says in his "Essential cataloguing" (which was the very first
book on AACR2 I ever read), p. 100: "What happens if the item falls
under rule 21.1B2 but also appears to have a personal author? The rules
tell us nothing in themselves, but the answer becomes apparent when you
start to look at the examples that follow. From these it becomes obvious
that entry under corporate body, if it applies, takes precedence over
personal authorship. This means that, for example, a catalogue of a
collection in a particular museum, provided that it emanates from the
museum, will be entered under the heading for the museum even if it has
a personal author."
He gives the following example:
Pre-Raphaelite drawings in the British museum / J.A. Gere
Main entry is under the British museum, with an added entry for Gere.
So far, so good. But now when I look at RDA 19.2.1.3, there is a very
similar example under "Works of an administrative nature":
Furniture from British India and Ceylon : a catalogue of the collections
in the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Peabody Essex Museum / Amin
Jaffer ; assisted in Salem by Karina Corrigan and with a contribution by
Robin D. Jones ; photographs by Mike Kitcatt, Markham Sexton and Jeffrey
Dykes. --- Salem, Massachusetts : Peabody Essex Museum
The creators are given as:
Victoria and Albert Museum
Peabody Essex Museum
Now, I don't have a problem with the fact that the museums are seen as
creators. But I don't understand why there is no third creator, namely
the personal author Amin Jaffer. Shouldn't this also be a case of
"persons, families, or corporate bodies [being] jointly responsible for
the creation of a work" (19.2.1.1)? I don't see how this case is any
different from others where the creators perform different roles.
My speculation is that perhaps in RDA's system it is simply not possible
for a corporate body and a person to work together as creators, i.e.
that 19.2.1.1 should be read as "*either* more than one person *or* more
than one family *or* more than one corporate body jointly responsible
for the creation of a work". But if this is the case, then it should
have been clearly stated. Also, I really can't see a reason why it
shouldn't be possible to have a collaboration of a corporate body and a
person in the creation of a work.
And there is another question: If Amin Jaffer or J.A. Gere in Bowman's
example are not considered to be creators, then what else could they be?
My feeling is that their contribution is at the level of the work, and
not at expression level. So the only possibility would be to consider
them as "other persons associated with a work" (19.3.1), i.e. grouping
them with "persons, etc., to whom correspondence is addressed, persons,
etc., honoured by a festschrift, directors, cinematographers, sponsoring
bodies, production companies, institutions, etc., hosting an exhibition
or event, etc." This really doesn't seem suitable at all.
Or should they be seen as contributors (i.e. on expression level) after
all? If so, which relationship designator could be used?
Any ideas?
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Facultäy of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
