[MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds
Will, You should post this question to the Visual Resources Listserv (VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU). VRA is full of cataloging nerds (I mean that in the nicest way - they are amazing) who deal with and debate these kind of cataloging issues all the time. Diane 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/ -- Diane M. Zorich 113 Gallup Road Princeton, NJ 08542 USA Voice: 609-252-1606 Fax: 609-252-1607 Email: dzorich at mindspring.com or dianezorich at comcast.net
[MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds
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 re...@carnegiemuseums.org 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/
[MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds
Following up on Cathryn's last point, perhaps the Variable Media Network approach has something to offer here. It's nominally about the preservation of variable media but really, by focussing on what's significant in a work (working with the artist where possible), it's probably great for documentation problems like this. Jeremy http://variablemedia.net/e/welcome.html Their publication Permanence through change: http://www.variablemedia.net/e/preserving/html/var_pub_index.html From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Cathryn Goodwin Sent: Tue 24/03/2009 20:17 To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds I'll give it a shot - Will - did you accession the original piece, or does it remain in your collection as a commissioned/unaccessioned work? I would consider the original piece a 'proof' of the second piece. Likely to be important in understanding the artist's process and the actual work that was in your exhibition. I would link the two records in a 'see also' way. Then I would obtain whatever evidence possible of the artist's intent in both versions of the work - to document the differences between the two. cathryn -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Real, Will Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:26 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds 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 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/ ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu 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/
[MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds
Will - I'll take a shot at the nerd challenge too: The first object: It is unique and should remain as a separate catalogued object record, with the appropriate exhibition history, acquisition information, description (including its work-in-process nature), and full links and relationships, etc. The physical object is really just a carrier. You may have backup copies and a digital preservation plan, but the disc itself is not the object. You will track the location(s) of the carrier(s), but they are not intellectual in nature. The second object: This is not unique. As you described it, it is part of a limited edition. It is also different from the first in that the video work was further edited and modified by the artist, sound track added, and has different exhibition criteria. You might think of this as a different state (similar to a limited edition Picasso print with a different state). It should be catalogued separately from the first with the appropriate exhibition history, special permissions by the artist and anything else that can be stored as archival information, acquisition info, etc., and the location(s) of the carrier(s) will be tracked. If permitted, it may even be interesting to have a video of the video work being exhibited on the building fa?ades to record the exhibition/realization of the work in this special situation for historical archive purposes. The records of the first and the second works should be related to each other in your collections information system, probably in a sibling relationship (e.g. is state of or see also), as Cathryn suggests, as opposed to a parent-child relationship. It sounds like the second work is not so much a derivative work as a different state, as mentioned above. I can't expound much on the FRBR aspect of your question, other than to say that maintaining as many links and relationships for discovery and navigation would be consistent with this bibliographic standard. Best, Jay Jay Hoffman, CEO Gallery Systems 261 West 35th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10001 jay at gallerysystems.com +1.646.733.2733 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Cathryn Goodwin Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:18 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds I'll give it a shot - Will - did you accession the original piece, or does it remain in your collection as a commissioned/unaccessioned work? I would consider the original piece a 'proof' of the second piece. Likely to be important in understanding the artist's process and the actual work that was in your exhibition. I would link the two records in a 'see also' way. Then I would obtain whatever evidence possible of the artist's intent in both versions of the work - to document the differences between the two. cathryn -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Real, Will Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:26 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] Calling all cataloguing nerds 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
