CISSIG (CATALOGING AND INDEXING SYSTEMS)Author(s): Diane ParksSource: Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, Vol. 8,No. 1 (Spring 1989), p. 22Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Art Libraries Society of NorthAmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27948003 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 03:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and Art Libraries Society of North America are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of NorthAmerica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 03:18:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22 Art Documentation, Spring, 1989

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (SIG) & TYPE OF LIBRARY

(TOL) COLUMNS

CISSIG (CATALOGING AND INDEXING SYSTEMS) edited by Diane Parks

The following topics, like most that appear in this column, come from the CISSIG membership. Some questions are ac companied by "answers," or at least attempts at solutions.

The N/T split in a small art library The problem of certain topics being split in the LC classifi

cation scheme between the schedule (for the objects) and the schedule (for the technique) was raised. Decorative arts, such as pottery, jewelry and quilts which go in NK, are separated from their related craft or how-to books which class in TT. In a small or browsing collection this would be more of a noticeable inconvenience than in a larger one. Also, the fact that this conceptual division is not carried out consistently in the class, since, for example, painting tech nique and drawing technique class in ND and NC, makes it even more questionable. While the inexpedient nature of this arrangement is ob

vious from the point of view of art research, it is nevertheless very unlikely that LC will change this. There are many cases in the schedules where there is more than one appropriate place to put a subject. No library is obligated to follow LC practice however, and can modify it to suit its needs if it can afford to do the work that entails. One possibility would be to develop an alternative scheme for the troublesome areas and with luck maybe it would be possible even to get LC to agree (probably) not to use the codes for other things, as was done for the development of the NH schedule for photography.

Bauhaus-Archiv, Museum f?r Gestaltung The authority records for "Bauhaus-Archiv" and "Bauhaus

Archiv, Museum f?r Gestaltung" indicate an earlier/later rela tionship, but bibliographic records (such as LC87-104553, LC87-104171, and others) would seem to show that both forms are being used contemporaneously. A reply from Mr. Ewald at LC's Descriptive Cataloging Division yielded the following helpful information:

The headings Bauhaus-Archiv (n80-131494) and Bauhaus-Archiv, Museum f?r Gestaltung (n80-129378) may seem to be "contemporaneous" at first glance, but there was actually a time prior to ca. 1977 when the name was just Bauhaus-Archiv. A search through the German bibliography 5-year cumulations and both older and newer reference sources would seem to ver ify this, also. Bibliographic record 87-104553 has been changed to reflect the latest heading, i.e. Bauhaus-Archiv, Museum f?r Gestaltung. There may be a few other bibliographic records which don't reflect the latest usage, but this could happen simply because the authority records don't indicate the exact date of the change. Also, the addition of this name "Museum f?r Gestaltung" seems to be just a descriptive addendum to the name, but it does expand the function of the body's original purpose.

int'l. dir. arts, 1985/86, 1987/88 (Bauhaus-Archiv, Mu seum f?r Gestaltung) Berliner Stadtadressb., 1979 (Bauhaus-Archiv e.V., Museum f?r Gestaltung) Deut. Bibi., 1976-80 (Bauhaus-Archiv <Berlin, West>) 1982, 83, 86 (Bauhaus-Archiv <Berlin, West>; usage: Bauhaus-Archiv, Museum f?r Gestaltung).

Other research indicates that this name change took place ca. 1974. However, while there is therefore a legitimate basis for the historical/current distinction, there is a further complica tion in the fact that both forms continue to be used by the body itself. In fact, a search through the post-1974 records on OCLC reveals that the supposedly historical short form "Bauhaus-Archiv" is about as common as the newer full form. This atypical situation is very likely related to the fact that the easier-to-use brief form just happens to be the same as the old form. Thus, the two forms are both contempo raneous and older/newer versions of each other. Technically, only the latest fuller form should be used in headings, re gardless of what appears in the body of the record.

Redundant (?) architecture subject headings We are all still grateful for the elimination of the art genre

headings which used to come in two forms (e.g., Painting/ Paintings: singular for the process and plural for the product) which were very hard to distinguish in practice. However, there are other cases in the subject headings which are nearly as bad, or so many people think. One such type is certain architecture headings which, while in theory may have different meanings, in practice are often extremely hard to differentiate. Some of the more common ones include:

art museums/art museum architecture museums/museum building churches/church architecture buildings/architecture library buildings/library architecture architecture, industrial/industrial buildings architecture, domestic/dwellings

In some cases, maybe one heading could be chosen and a subdivision created (e.g., "?Buildings")? For other cases, maybe one of the two headings could be chosen to stand for both. While the good intent behind making such choices avail

able to us is clear, if there is wide inconsistency and trouble in their application it may be that they are more bother than they are worth. Or, if the determination of which to use be comes so difficult that both are used, then they are not func tioning for us, but merely becoming a dual file of essentially identical material.

Cutter clutter?the controversy over A4 The problem with the A4 cutter for catalogues for a par

ticular artist is that it creates a very congested catalog under that one area when an artist is involved in many exhibitions in a single year. Also, the fact that many exhibition cata logues nowadays are virtually monographs which often have substantial or even predominately critical texts makes them prime candidates for the biography and criticism section. The old traditional concept of an exhibition catalogue as a thin pamphlet with a list of works, a little text and mostly illustra tions would indeed fit well into this type of perfunctory label ing, distinguished only by a letter after the year, and kept separate from the other works. But a distinction needs to be made between a catalogue issued in conjunction with an exhibition, meaning, a regular monograph which the pub lisher releases at the time of the exhibition which just hap pens to carry information about the exhibit, as opposed to an exhibition catalogue, or a book designed primarily as a guide to an exhibition and little else.

On the positive side, some people feel that this arrange ment does create a nice chronological grouping for these works. Also, it theoretically helps provide a general organiza tion of the works by categorizing in a simple fashion the artist's relation to the work in hand under the general outline of: A2-autobiography, A3-correspondence, A4-catalogs, A6-7-individual works, and A8-Z-biography and criticism. However, if exhibition catalogs are being produced with a lot of biographical or critical text in them, then this neat distinc tion does not hold true in practice anyway.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 03:18:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions