CISSIG NewsAuthor(s): Deborah BooneSource: Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, Vol. 1,No. 3/4 (Summer 1982), pp. 103-105Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Art Libraries Society of NorthAmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27946943 .

Accessed: 11/06/2014 07:24

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 195.78.109.135 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:24:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Art Documentation, Summer, 1982 103

A The National Academy of Design in New York has an exhibition of documentary materials (photographs, plans, models) of Rudolf Steiner's Goetheanum in D?rnach, Switzerland (May 4-June 20, 1982). An accompanying booklet (The Goetheanum: Rudolf Steiner's

Architectural Impulse, cl982) with text by Ake Fant is 250 at the Academy. A The March 1982 ARLIS/UK News-sheet reports on two interest

ing new French architecture reference works. Architecture XIX XXe si?cles: groupes et mouvements: notices descriptives is an al

phabetical listing of groups and movements which provides a brief history and statement for each, names of representative architects or

members, a selective bibliography, and a note of specialist sources. Includes Archigram, Art Deco, Art Nouveau, Glasgow School, New

Shingle Style, and many others. Les fonds parisiens d'archives de l'architecture: guide d'orientation is a directory of architectural arc hives in Paris, giving address, name of contact person, conditions of access and opening hours, description of collections, catalogs and

publications. Indexes include subjects and architects. Both are avail able from: Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Architecturales, Ecole Nationale Sup?rieure des Beaux-Arts, 1 rue Jacques Callot, 75006 Paris. Price information not given.

edited by Deborah Boone

QUESTIONS?? AND ANSWERS A The monograph, Sir Edwin Landseer, by Richard Ormond (LCCN 81-10737?AACR 2) has Landseer's year of birth as 1803 (cf. p. 2) and not 1802, which is the date in all of the major reference sources and the date previously used by LC. The LC record for this book changes the artist's birth date to 1803. LC responds that 1803 is the true birth date based on documentary evidence; the correct date was proven in 1981 by the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Corrections to Landseer's other bibliographical records are being made.

A Sherman Clarke addressed the following questions to LC: (1) Re: OCCN 81-131828 Gainsborough, 1727-1788: [exposition], Grand Palais, 6

f?vrier-27 avril, 1981... (added entry: Galeries nationales du

grand Palais (France)) Pre-1981 records from LC include two forms of heading dependent upon the form on the title page, etc., of the work, i.e., Paris. Grand Palais OR Galeries nationales d'exposition du Grand Palais. The cited record has "Grand Palais" on the title page. Does the usage of the

longer form as the added entry indicate that LC has determined that "Grand Palais" is equivalent to "Galeries nationales... "? If so, the references on authority record 80-160083 for the Galeries are incom

plete. References should be added from "Grand Palais (Paris, France)" and from "Paris (France). Grand Palais." LC replies that the answer to the question is yes?both headings are the same corpo rate body, with LC choosing to set up the AACR 2 form:

' 'Galeries

nationales du Grand Palais (France)." LC is adding the references

suggested by Sherman.

(2) Cataloging Service Bulletin no. 124 includes (pp. 18-19) a discussion of the use of the subdivision "History" in art subject headings. Basically, for the "fine arts," CSB proscribes the use of

"History" in combination with geographic subdivision. This is a clear instruction. A question arises when one wishes to use the free

floating subdivision "?Sources." Are the art subject headings to be considered "historical headings" according to the scope note for "?Sources" in the introduction to the 8th edition of LCSH, and "?Sources" therefore may be appended directly to a heading like

"Art, French" or "Art?England"? Or, is it impossible to use "?

Sources" with geographically divided art subject headings because the intervening "?History" should not be used? LC's response is:

Yes, one can say "Art?England?Sources" and "Art, French? Sources.

" Since "?History" is proscribed under fine arts headings,

one must use "?Sources" without the intervening term that is nor

mally required in other subject fields. This means that we treat art

headings as ''historical headings. ''

A Daniel Starr shares this clarification, from the Subject Catalog ing Division at LC, of the following four headings found in the 9th edition of LCSH:

CARICATURE?the concept, the art the technique, the procedure, etc.

CARICATURES AND CARTOONS?the items themselves; can be used as a form heading

CARTOONING?the technique, etc. WIT AND HUMOR, PICTORIAL?the broadest heading, cover

ing many specific headings?can be qualified by country and added as a form heading to works by an individual

A The exhibition catalog from the Lefevre Galley, Important XIX & XX Century Paintings, 15 November-l5th December 1979 includes 17 works. The gallery owns two of them, and the others are being sold on commission for the owners. Should it get corporate main entry? After some discussion, the Fogg Art Museum Library catalogers decided

"yes": A) because whatever the details of actual ownership, these 17 works are the "resources" of the gallery and are so presented; B)

usually in such cases one can't tell who owns the works (this catalog has unusually good documentation); and C) in this case, as in most

others, the title would make a poor main entry (it would be useless as an access point of any type). If members have thoughts to add, other

approaches, etc., please send them to Mary Jane Cuneo at the Fogg Art Museum Library.

LITERATURE A "Variant Edition Cataloging on OCLC; Input or Adapt?" by Douglas A. Cargille, Library Resources & Technical Services,

January/March 1982, pp. 47-51. A "How Human-Usable is Interchangeable? Or, Shall We Produce

Catalogues or Babelographic Towers?" by Frans Heymans, Library Resources & Technical Services, May/June 1982, pp. 156-169. A "User Survey of a Microfiche Catalogue," Information Technology and Libraries, March 1982. A In the "Recent Publications" column of the March 1982 Infor mation Technology and Libraries there is a review of Authorities: A MARC Format (1st ed.) published by Processing Services, Library of Congress, 1981.

SUBJECT HEADINGS AND REFERENCE: A SURVEY

The following survey was presented at the ARJJSINA national con ference in Boston, as part of the panel "A New Look at Subject Headings,

' ' by Lamia Doumato and Roger Law son (National Gallery

of Art). Those members unable to attend this session may be interested in the responses to the survey.

Our purpose in devising the survey which forms the basis for this discussion was twofold. We wanted first to determine the use of

subject headings in the catalogs of different types of art libraries? museum, academic, and public?and some of the problems encoun tered in each. With this information we felt that we could detect a

pattern of usage for each type of library. Second, we wanted to learn the opinions of those reference librarians about specific problems in subject access, about general topics such as automation and uni

formity, and about the relationship between the reference staff and

catalogers. We were seeking a similar pattern for each type of library with a view to suggesting possible solutions.

Nine questions comprised our survey, Our first purpose required that we ask specific questions about subject headings in the particular institution, viz.: ?What subdivisions do you use under artist's names? ?Do you use more than one subdivision under an artist's name? ?Do you modify LC subdivision practice for your own use? If so,

in what way? In addition to these questions, we asked each institution to indicate for each of three given headings (an artist, Picasso; an institution, the

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.135 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:24:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

104 Art Documentation, Summer, 1982

British Museum; and a building, the Capitol in Washington) the sub ject divisions used; this, we felt, would facilitate even closer compari son within and between each type of library.

We then inquired about the institution's use of an on-line system for

cataloging and/or reference, and whether this had affected subject heading use; and about the participation of the reference library in the cataloging process. These inquiries attempted to identify other factors affecting the reference environment.

Finally, and most generally, we solicited opinions concerning the

desirability of subject heading uniformity among art libraries and the anticipated effect of the AAT on local and national subject heading use. Thus, what began as a very specific investigation became one

with very general questions. Sixty institutions in the United States and Canada were chosen from

the ?919-?9S0ARLIS/NA Directory of Members to receive the ques tionnaire. Our object in making the selections was to achieve a bal ance between library types (the aforementioned museum, academic and public) and sizes (both in number of volumes and in number of staff) on the one hand, and a geographic diversity on the other. Al

though a telephone interview might have gathered the information more quickly, we felt that a written questionnaire would encourage more detailed (and more candid) responses. Each questionnaire was

addressed to the reference librarian, although we knew that in some cases the reference staff and the cataloging staff was the same person. A follow-up letter was sent to those who did not respond initially; a few telephone inquiries helped to raise the total number of responses to 40, or two-thirds of the number polled. We began this project with certain assumptions. Our own experi

ences led us to expect, for example, that museum libraries (in some cases because of their specialized collections) would use the most

specialized and specific subject headings, while academic and public libraries (because of centralized cataloging, the volume of material, and the general clientele) would use more general subject headings.

We also predicted that the greater the collection's specialization, the

greater the inadequacy of standard LCSH, and therefore the greater the need would be to modify these headings. The proliferation of automated systems for cataloging and reference, we believed, would have enhanced support for greater uniformity among art libraries of all

types and sizes (although we suspected that economy would force libraries to admit fewer modifications on-line as well as on cards).

We assumed that the smaller the library staff, regardless of library type, the greater the reference librarian's say in cataloging policies

would be. The responses tested our assumptions and provided us with some

new insights into the use of subject headings in art reference. We found that more than % of the museum libraries polled did modify LCSH in some way; but many of these modifications were made in order to reduce the number of subject headings and to make them look more precise, either by combining topical subject headings and chronological subdivisions or by eliminating certain subdivisions al

together, especially under artists' names (addresses, essays, lectures;

biography). Under artists' names, simplification seemed to be the

object of such modification, the idea being that the fewer places one had to look, the more effective the subject approach (this was particularly true for subject entires for corporate names; one person suggested that researchers were hindered by subdividing museums by their departments and further by catalogs). One-third of the responses indicated the use of catalogue raisonn? or its equivalent (definitive catalogs; catalogs of works, with the museum libraries preferring this term to 'catalogs') as a subdivision under artist; only a few institutions subdivided even a major multi-media artist by medium. Only one reply indicated the use of no subdivisions under artists' names.

The academic and public libraries we polled demonstrated an over

whelming conformity to LCSH, with only three academic libraries and one public library indicating any variations from LC practice; implicit were the constraints of time, staff, and money. As in the case of the museum libraries, when modifications were made, they were most

often those of abbreviation and simplification rather than expansion. Only one academic library presented us with a list of artist subdivisions equal in detail to that of a museum library; only one public library suggested that its users would benefit by breaking down major artists' files by medium. Even those institutions which claimed strict adherence to LC policies used, in fact, less than full LC subject cataloging if the file were small under personal or corporate name.

We found that museum libraries use more specific subject headings,

and also that they were more likely to modify standard LCSH to meet individual needs than were academic or public libraries; the reasons

given for not doing so in the academic and public libraries were economic rather than philosophical, however. In most cases of modifi

cation, the departure from LC was one of simplication, fragmentation of the catalog?even in the case of very specialized collections. We sought a partial explanation for this iri the effect of automation on

the cataloging and reference processes: it is expeditious to make few or no changes. More than % of the museum libraries have an on-line

system for cataloging?with RLIN dominating?and reference. An even greater proportion of academic libraries use on-line systems (12 of

16), equally divided between RLIN and OCLC; all but two of the public libraries use an on-line system, either in-house or OCLC. We expected those institutions using OCLC for cataloging to cite little or no impact on their use of subject headings since subject access on OCLC is not yet available. Among RLIN members, the feeling was that membership in RLIN required adherence to LC in order to meet strict RLIN standards. With few exceptions, the respondents in all categories reported that the use of an on-line system for cataloging and for reference had little or no

effect on their use of subject headings. Those institutions which had in-house systems prior to joining a network changed (or planned to change) to conform to network standards if possible; those institutions which used LCSH before automation were committed to continuing use

of them after automation. Only two of all the institutions polled suggested that interaction between art libraries within RLG would be possible or desirable because of the availability of individual members' cataloging records for comparison or adaptation. (Automation alone in

cataloging and reference is not perceived by these librarians as a means to encourage cooperation among art libraries involved in any of the various networks in the improvement of subject access. Rather, it seems to have encouraged conformity to a less effective subject heading au

thority, viz., LC.) The irony of this situation is made more apparent by reading the

problems reference librarians encountered in subject access. In nearly all cases, and in all three types of art libraries, LC headings are cited for their obsolescence (in describing new or non-traditional art movements, or even well-established terms such as historic preservation), their

obscurity (inverted headings; use of modern as a modifier, even for the 17th and 18th centuries), and their inconsistency. One respondent felt that LC was adequate for undergraduate work. Two went on to suggest that sophisticated researchers do not use subject headings at all; they would prefer that the cataloging process itself be accelerated by assign ingfewer subject headings, and using them more consistently. Most felt that cross-references alone were not adequate to ensure easier subject access, and that the solution lies in a reduction of the number of subject

headings used. When asked about the desirability of uniformity among art li

braries, reference librarians showed a strong similarity of opinion. Three-quarters of those in museum libraries felt uniformity would be an advantage if it did not deprive the small, specialized collections and the large, comprehensive collections of detailed access; for these

institutions, simplicity was preferable to strict uriiformity. wo-thirds of the academic librarians also thought uniformity would be an advan

tage, with simplicity again the best approach. Half of the public librarians refrained from commenting at all, while the other half

agreed that uniformity is desirable.

In this light, the range of opinion on the AAT is surprising. Public librarians felt that it would have little or no effect on subject access in their institutions. Curiously enough, some museum librarians felt the same way, but in this category many more felt that the thesaurus was

one step on the way to providing greater consistency and uniformity of language, especially if it were used to supplement the gaps in LC (most institutions, understandably, were reluctant to jettison LC com

pletely). Academic librarians also felt that the thesaurus could be useful only if adopted by LC or at least sanctioned by LC. A few saw its role limited to use with new on-line indexes or as an authority file

for RLIN. The variety of opinions concerning the thesaurus indicates that many still consider this project to be a theoretical one; more information needs to be disseminated about the aims of its authors, about the considerable amount of work already completed, and about

what steps are being taken by the various data bases to promote

uniformity in the terms used for subject cataloging. Finally, our attention turns to the relationship between reference

librarians and the cataloging staff, a relationship which is of obvious importance for the users of the card catalog in any type of library. Our

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.135 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:24:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Art Documentation, Summer, 1982 105

original assumption?that the smaller the library staff is, the greater the interaction between reference and cataloging processes?seems to have been too simplistic. Better than half of the museum reference librarians said that they contribute to the cataloging process, in some cases because the reference librarian is also the cataloger, or because the catalogers also do reference work on a regular basis. The academic reference librarians (more than two-thirds of those responding) indi cated that they had little or no interaction with the cataloging process. Among the public librarians, only one person reported any coopera tion with the cataloging staff?and the others emphatically and regret fully reported very little or no opportunity to make suggestions. In other words, the museum libraries chosen for the purposes of this

survey (regardless of staff size) showed a greater degree of interaction between reference and cataloging staff members than did the academic or public libraries. Although most academic and public libraries are working under different economic and personnel condi

tions, this does show that size is not necessarily an impediment to

cooperation between reference and cataloging. Close consultation be tween the producers and the users of the catalog can only give each

party a better idea of the ways in which the catalog can provide the best access to the library's collections.

This survey intended to determine certain patterns of subject head

ing use in museum, academic, and public libraries, and to determine the problems encountered in each situation. We found that although subject heading use does vary from type to type, the principles guid ing their application are strikingly similar: the present multiplicity of terms in use is largely unsatisfactory; accurate and efficient use of subject headings requires that fewer but more precise subject head ings be used, and that they be used with greater (but not slavish) consistency.

If this is to be achieved, there needs to be more cooperation among several segments of the art library community. Certainly at the base of

any improvements in subject access is the library user; his or her needs should be the subject of a survey similar to this one. Reference and

cataloging departments must begin to work more closely in order to

apply what has been determined about the users' needs. Art librarians, both reference librarians and catalogers, need to approach the man ufacturers of the on-line systems and hold out for the development of a more consistent vocabulary; ARLIS/NA could serve as a forum and focus for this. More cooperation also needs to occur if there is to be any progress toward uniformity. Efforts toward compiling a set of standard terms (e.g., the AAT) need to be published, discussed, evaluated and presented to national bibliographical agencies (LC) for adaptation or adoption.

AACR 2 RULE REVISIONS The official AACR 2 rule revisions approved by the Joint Steering Committee are in the process of being printed by ALA. They will be printed in a standard type and format, on one side of the sheet only, which will make them suitable for interleaving. The rule revisions will be available from ALA Publishing Services and will also be published in future issues of the Cataloging Service Bulletin and the RTSD

Newsletter. Look for announcements and advertisements regarding the availability of the ALA printed rule revisions.

********

MICROFORMS SIG COLUMN edited by Paula Chiarmonte

A petition and the following statement of purpose will be submitted to the ?RUS IN A Executive Board at the mid-year August Board meet ing for official consideration of a Microforms Special Interest Group. The outcome of the Board's decision will be reported in the October

Microforms column.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE History

In spring 1980 Paula Chiarmonte approached the ARLIS/NA Executive Board regarding establishment of a Microforms Special Interest Group. It was decided that a subcommittee on microforms would be established under the aegis of the Visual Resources Special Interest Group; however, it was agreed that a microforms column

would appear in the ARLIS/N Newsletter as a regular feature and that it would be edited by Chiarmonte.

The first column appeared in October 1980 and featured a Mic roforms Bibliography which was revised in the Feburary 1981 issue. This column also included the 1981 Microforms Session program of the San Francisco annual conference as well as an announcement of an art microforms seminar held at the University of Texas at Austin in December 1980. The May 1981 column presented a report of the Austin seminar. Announcement of the 1982 microforms session pro gram of the Boston annual conference, "The Utilization of Mic roforms as Research Resources in the Fine Arts Library," appeared in the summer 1981 column; the October 1981 column reviewed the subcommittee's goals and objectives and reported on the unchanged status of the subcommittee under the aegis of the Visual Resources SIG that was determined at the Visual Resources SIG business meet

ing in San Fransisco. Publication of "Art Microform Collection Development Policy

Guidelines" occurred in the December 1981 column, and in the Feb

ruary 1982 column" A Systems Approach to Art Microform Collec tion Development" appeared. The May 1982 column reported on the 1982 Microforms Session and in summer 1982 the Executive Board

was petitioned for the approval of a separate Microforms Special Interest Group. This column included a statement of purpose, includ

ing goals and objectives, and a history of the Microforms Subcommit tee. Announcement of the 1983 annual conference Microforms Ses

sion, "Technology Interface: Microforms and Videodisc Hardware," will appear in the October 1982 column. The December 1982 column will include abstracts of papers presented at the 1983 Microforms Session and the February 1983 column will report on the Microforms Session at the annual conference in Philadelphia.

Goals and Objectives The purpose of the Microforms subcommittee was to formulate

collection development policies for slide curators and art librarians. The purpose of the Microforms subcommittee column was to publish a bibliography of library related microforms literature which provided a theoretical basis for the policies.

The principal goal of the Microforms SIG is establishment of a dialogue between users and producers of art microforms. Implementa tion would occur through standardizing hardware and software re

quirements. Organizing a union catalog of holders of major art microfiche collections is a secondary goal. Membership dues of the SIG would provide honoraria for speakers at the annual confer

ences, attracting experts in the fields.

SERIALS SIG COLUMN SERIAL REVIEWS edited by Katherine Haskins

A Bibliography of Current Art Journals & Bulletins Published in Eastern Europe + The Soviet Union

Abbreviations used for indexes cited:

AATA Art and archaeology technical abstracts. London/N.Y. 1955- .

ABCT Art bibliographies current titles. Santa Barbara, Ca. 1972- .

ABM Art bibliographies modern. Santa Barbara, Ca. 1969

AHCI Art & humanities citation index. Philadelphia. 1976

AI Art Index. New York. 1929- .

API The Architectural periodicals index. London. 1973?

Avery Avery index to architectural periodicals. Columbia Univer sity, New York. 15 vols. & supplements, 1973?

BKL Bibliographie zur Kunstgeschichtlichen Literatur in Ost und S?dosteurop?ischen Zeichschriften. Munich. 1971

525 Bulletin signal?tique: serie 525: Pr?histoire. Paris. 1970- .

526 Bulletin signal?tique: serie 526: Art et arch?ologie Proche-Orient, Asie, Am?rique. Paris. 1970

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.135 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:24:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions