On the differences between
Visual Resources and Library Cataloging - II
8/6/1997
 

Date:         Wed, 6 Aug 1997 21:59:35 -0400
Reply-To: Visual Resources Association <VRA-L@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
Sender: Visual Resources Association <VRA-L@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
From: "Robert A. Baron" <>
Subject:      Re: Robert's comments on education
To: Multiple recipients of list VRA-L <VRA-L@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender:       Visual Resources Association VRA-L@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU
Poster:       "Robert A. Baron"
Subject:      Re: Robert's comments on education
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 05:08 PM 8/5/97 -0400, Mary Wassermann wrote:

> >Re: your invitation for responses:
>It seems to me that in the book cataloging domain, that "exceptions to the
>rule" are as frequent as those items which fit neatly into basic
>cataloging rules and the MARC format--thus, library cataloging is also
>quite dynamic. We maybe dealing with apples and oranges in terms of the
>type of information being cataloged, but fundamental concepts which
>govern the development of records & databases (name authorities, a
>standardized record structure, etc.) serve both VR curators and Library
>catalogers well, to my thinking. Perhaps the real difference is that
>libraries have had decades to develop rules and practices which apply to
>the myriad of materials with attributes which differ in some way from the
>norm.  We both are dealing with a certain number of works that are
>straightforward to catalog, and an equally large chunk of things that
>require special attention.

I don't think of the differences between library and fine-arts cataloging
as due to distinctions in technology and database sophistication, but,
rather due to fundamental differences between their respective cataloged
content.  True, fine-arts cataloging will be well served by finely hewn
thesauri and efficiently networked databases, but the core difference, to
me, revolves around understanding the work of art as a unique man-made
object in which style, subject, patronage, meaning, aesthetics, purpose and
use are the defining criteria -- criteria rarely written into the work
itself. Book cataloging, in contrast, looks at the tangible, proceeds from
the given, defines categories of use to users, classifies by criteria
suitable to serve as finding aids.  Looking at it this way, it seems only
natural that computers came to libraries first and that to make computers
bend to the demands of the fine arts has been, to say it mildly, a struggle.

[ Go to part one. ]

[ Home Page | E-mail Menu ]