I'm not a cataloging nerd (although I've been called worse names), but I tend to look at it this way: what is the basic (physical, if possible) thing that's being catalogued? Its manifestations or uses or projections or permutations or interpretations may be many and varied, but the thing catalogued is a CD or a DVD or a hard disk or a website sitting on a specific server, or some such ...thing, even if the work is digital. It's where the work lives.
Or think of it this way: if the work is ever stolen and you need to report it to the police, what would you want to recover? The manifestation? The projection? No -- you'd want the thing that embodies the work and makes it manifestable or projectable. That's the work that's in the collection. The rest belongs in the "Description" field. You say you are acquiring edition 1/4 of the work. That's pretty concrete right there. That definition would replace the former, temporary catalog record, I would think -- that old record is now "exhibition history" or even "provenance." And the permitted "manifestations" would, again, appear in the "Description" field, or some other free text field. Now all the real catalogers out there can take apart everything I've just written. Amalyah Keshet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Real, Will" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 16:28 Subject: [MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds To: Museum Computer Network Listserv <mcn-l at mcn.edu> > If any of you are involved in complex cataloguing questions, > especially for contemporary art, and enjoy puzzling over them for > inordinate amounts of time, here is a conundrum for you. How would > you approach a situation like this? > > The artist created a work specifically for a temporary exhibition. > The original work was projected video imagery on the fa?ades of the > museum building. We created a full catalogue record in our > collections system for this work. Subsequently the artist created a > derivative version of the piece to be offered for sale through the > artist's gallery, in an edition of 4. The museum is acquiring > edition 1/4 this work. It consists of the same imagery as the > original, but it has been re-edited, has acquired a sound track, > and is designed primarily as an indoors single-channel video > projection. However, in our museum's case, the artist is permitting > the work to be shown again as an outside projection on the museum > fa?ades exactly as the original work was, as well as indoors as a > single-channel projection. > > It may also be significant that the original work was created under > severe time constraints and the artist viewed it more or less as a > work in progress. But it had to be shown in the exhibition in an > "unfinished" state because the artist simply ran out of time. > > Essentially our options are 1) create a separate catalogue record > for the new derivative work, or 2) treat both the original > projection and the derivative piece as two "manifestations" of a > single "work" (loosely following FRBR concepts). > > I suppose a broader question is, do any of you follow FRBR concepts > when cataloguing works of this nature? > > If this is too esoteric for the list, feel free to respond off-list. > > Thanks, > > Will Real > Carnegie Museum of Art > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum > Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l > > The MCN-L archives can be found at: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/ >
