Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR
As an art historian (and picture cataloguer), these questions have rattled around the caverns of my mind for decades. The rule of thumb re the conventions of art history is similar to Barbara's comment. That is, if an art work (ie work and expression in frbr talk) is used inspirationally by another creator, and thereby takes on a new dynamic and artistic form, it is clearly an independent piece. Marcel Duchamp's Mona Lisa of 1919 is a case in point. Duchamp simply pencilled a moustache on to a print of Leonardo's work/expression , taking the practice of art into the wild terrain of Dada (born 3 streets away from where I am sitting in the old medieval quarter of Zürich) and creating a new work/expression etc. Sometimes, these referenced interventions are not as successful or striking as Duchamp's and we need to keep reminding ourselves to ask what was the INTENTION. If a new work was intended, then we accept that, reserving judgement. Many amateur copies fall into this category. Forgeries do not. In art history thinking, the INTENTION behind any reproduction is critical. As a picture cataloguer, I can perhaps apply similar logic: a photographic reproduction or a print of Mona is most usually an exercise in neutral (commercial!) documentation, not normally a new artistic endeavor. So, presumably a new expression of an already existing work/expression? A real example from daily work: in our collection, we have photochrom prints of famous European oil paintings, mostly Italian. These anonymous photochroms were clearly intended to show the bougeoisie what certain famous works looked like and enable them to be collected personally in this form. So what are they? New expressions of existing works? On the other hand, our wonderful topographical photochroms of old Europe before it changed forever after the First World War, are original works and expressions. The (also) anonymous photographers who supplied the negatives for these prints selected their views and took their photographs, thus making this category of photochroms works as well as expressions.
Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR
Hi Liz and others, As it happens, I gave this exact problem a great deal of thought about 30 years ago. It was long before FRBR of course, but the issue itself has not changed. At the time I argued that reproductions were new works, and for describing the relationship between the original and the reproduction/image as Represented Work. I'm now committing the scholarly sin of self-citation-- but in case it might be useful, this is the article that I wrote on this topic: Shatford, Sara. Describing a picture: a thousand words are seldom cost effective. Cataloging Classification Quarterly, Vol. 44(4), Summer 1984, p. 13-30. Sara Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center sla...@library.ucla.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Elizabeth O'Keefe [eoke...@themorgan.org] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:31 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR Several months ago, there was a discussion on the PCCList about whether it was appropriate to add an access point for: [Artist]. Works. Selections to a printed monograph that includes reproductions of the artist's work. The use of conventional collective titles is well-established for compilations of textual works, but prior to RDA, headings of this kind were never applied to monographs illustrated with reproductions of art works. Catalogers of art-related materials felt the headings were confusing and unhelpful. The Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS has held several discussions about this topic, and is considering, among other issues, the FRBR justification for the practice. We are uncertain about how FRBR would characterize the relationship between an art work and a reproduction of that work, and would welcome comments from readers of this list on questions such as: Is a reproduction an expression of the art work? A manifestation of the art work? Or is it an expression or manifestation of a different work that is related to the art work? If the reproduction is in turn reproduced in another medium, such as a printed monograph, what is the relationship between the art work, the photographic reproduction of that art work, and the photomechanical reproduction of that reproduction presented in the printed work? And is the FRBR relationship affected by the content type--in other words, will the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a drawing be different from the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a three-dimensional object? Any thoughts you choose to share on this vexing topic will be much appreciated. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org
Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR
This is applicable to all art or arts, music included. See CCQ, vol. 50 (or 51?) nos. 5-8. On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: I agree with Sara. Honestly, I think about the question the whole morning. Finally I feel that a photography of an original artistic work should be a new work and expression. I did a hesitation on a new work. But it is very hard to say that photographing is not an individual artistic content creation. Any more thoughts? Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.orgwrote: Several months ago, there was a discussion on the PCCList about whether it was appropriate to add an access point for: [Artist]. Works. Selections to a printed monograph that includes reproductions of the artist's work. The use of conventional collective titles is well-established for compilations of textual works, but prior to RDA, headings of this kind were never applied to monographs illustrated with reproductions of art works. Catalogers of art-related materials felt the headings were confusing and unhelpful. The Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS has held several discussions about this topic, and is considering, among other issues, the FRBR justification for the practice. We are uncertain about how FRBR would characterize the relationship between an art work and a reproduction of that work, and would welcome comments from readers of this list on questions such as: Is a reproduction an expression of the art work? A manifestation of the art work? Or is it an expression or manifestation of a different work that is related to the art work? If the reproduction is in turn reproduced in another medium, such as a printed monograph, what is the relationship between the art work, the photographic reproduction of that art work, and the photomechanical reproduction of that reproduction presented in the printed work? And is the FRBR relationship affected by the content type--in other words, will the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a drawing be different from the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a three-dimensional object? Any thoughts you choose to share on this vexing topic will be much appreciated. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR
Each resource contains intellectual or artistic content and there are relationships between the essence of that content and the person/family/corporate body responsible for it. The basic work in the FRBR sense is still there in the photograph, and FRBR makes a relationship between that contained work and how it is expressed (communicated) and then how it is packaged (manifestation), as different points of view for that resource - I would suggest: don't think in terms of separate records for works, expressions, manifestations, and items - they are all points of view of a resource. Contributors to an expression are the important people/families/corporate bodies responsible for that aspect - communicating the contained work in a new way. That may be through communicating text in a different language, slightly updating or adjusting a text through a revision, through viewing an image in a new color or communicating that image in a new way. However, when that communication of a work transforms the work into a new work, we should be recognizing that in our cataloging rules (and I think we do). There is what I call a magic line where we say the content is altered so much it has become the work of another creator and related to the original work (we've done this in cataloging rules for centuries)- we already do that with music - where a performer is a contributor until he/she modifies the music he/she perform so much it is his/her own work based on the original work - or for motion pictures where we declare the result is so modified, it is a new work. I would say we have the same situation with a work of art and a photographer - If that photographer is faithfully portraying the original work, the role is a contributor expressing the original work. If the photographer uses an original work to produce something new - different colors, perspectives, a collage of images, etc. - then a new work exists, and that photographer is a creator of that new work. Does that help? Dr. Barbara B. Tillett Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA jscch...@rdatoolkit.org On Mar 8, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Joan Wang wrote: I agree with Sara. Honestly, I think about the question the whole morning. Finally I feel that a photography of an original artistic work should be a new work and expression. I did a hesitation on a new work. But it is very hard to say that photographing is not an individual artistic content creation. Any more thoughts? Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.org wrote: Several months ago, there was a discussion on the PCCList about whether it was appropriate to add an access point for: [Artist]. Works. Selections to a printed monograph that includes reproductions of the artist's work. The use of conventional collective titles is well-established for compilations of textual works, but prior to RDA, headings of this kind were never applied to monographs illustrated with reproductions of art works. Catalogers of art-related materials felt the headings were confusing and unhelpful. The Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS has held several discussions about this topic, and is considering, among other issues, the FRBR justification for the practice. We are uncertain about how FRBR would characterize the relationship between an art work and a reproduction of that work, and would welcome comments from readers of this list on questions such as: Is a reproduction an expression of the art work? A manifestation of the art work? Or is it an expression or manifestation of a different work that is related to the art work? If the reproduction is in turn reproduced in another medium, such as a printed monograph, what is the relationship between the art work, the photographic reproduction of that art work, and the photomechanical reproduction of that reproduction presented in the printed work? And is the FRBR relationship affected by the content type--in other words, will the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a drawing be different from the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a three-dimensional object? Any thoughts you choose to share on this vexing topic will be much appreciated. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR
Barbara, Yes. It helps. Thanks for your explanation both in theory and practice. Thanks again. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Barbara Tillett babstill...@me.com wrote: Each resource contains intellectual or artistic content and there are relationships between the essence of that content and the person/family/corporate body responsible for it. The basic work in the FRBR sense is still there in the photograph, and FRBR makes a relationship between that contained work and how it is expressed (communicated) and then how it is packaged (manifestation), as different points of view for that resource - I would suggest: don't think in terms of separate records for works, expressions, manifestations, and items - they are all points of view of a resource. Contributors to an expression are the important people/families/corporate bodies responsible for that aspect - communicating the contained work in a new way. That may be through communicating text in a different language, slightly updating or adjusting a text through a revision, through viewing an image in a new color or communicating that image in a new way. However, when that communication of a work transforms the work into a new work, we should be recognizing that in our cataloging rules (and I think we do). There is what I call a magic line where we say the content is altered so much it has become the work of another creator and related to the original work (we've done this in cataloging rules for centuries)- we already do that with music - where a performer is a contributor until he/she modifies the music he/she perform so much it is his/her own work based on the original work - or for motion pictures where we declare the result is so modified, it is a new work. I would say we have the same situation with a work of art and a photographer - If that photographer is faithfully portraying the original work, the role is a contributor expressing the original work. If the photographer uses an original work to produce something new - different colors, perspectives, a collage of images, etc. - then a new work exists, and that photographer is a creator of that new work. Does that help? Dr. Barbara B. Tillett Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA jscch...@rdatoolkit.org On Mar 8, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Joan Wang wrote: I agree with Sara. Honestly, I think about the question the whole morning. Finally I feel that a photography of an original artistic work should be a new work and expression. I did a hesitation on a new work. But it is very hard to say that photographing is not an individual artistic content creation. Any more thoughts? Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.orgwrote: Several months ago, there was a discussion on the PCCList about whether it was appropriate to add an access point for: [Artist]. Works. Selections to a printed monograph that includes reproductions of the artist's work. The use of conventional collective titles is well-established for compilations of textual works, but prior to RDA, headings of this kind were never applied to monographs illustrated with reproductions of art works. Catalogers of art-related materials felt the headings were confusing and unhelpful. The Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS has held several discussions about this topic, and is considering, among other issues, the FRBR justification for the practice. We are uncertain about how FRBR would characterize the relationship between an art work and a reproduction of that work, and would welcome comments from readers of this list on questions such as: Is a reproduction an expression of the art work? A manifestation of the art work? Or is it an expression or manifestation of a different work that is related to the art work? If the reproduction is in turn reproduced in another medium, such as a printed monograph, what is the relationship between the art work, the photographic reproduction of that art work, and the photomechanical reproduction of that reproduction presented in the printed work? And is the FRBR relationship affected by the content type--in other words, will the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a drawing be different from the FRBR relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a three-dimensional object? Any thoughts you choose to share on this vexing topic will be much appreciated. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland
