Records for Photographic Resources at the NYPL and the MFA

Over the past decade, digital access to collections has become a user expectation of cultural heritage organizations, blurring the distinctions between archives, libraries, and museums.  However, each have different traditions of documentation and organization, even audiences—museums attract "visitors" while libraries take care of "users."

"Museum departments operate within an organizational structure that is very different from a library, with dissimilar priorities and unique institutional culture"  (Kirchhoff 225).

Their major differences lie in the types of materials they handle.  The dynamic nature of art information—changing attributions and dates in light of historical research—is foreign to most librarians, who mainly manage "static" published works that have all relevant information printed within the binding.  

As a result, museums and libraries adhere to different cataloging and encoding standards, making it difficult to connect digital collections between the institutions.  Attempts have been made to bring the two types of collections under one integrated cataloging system, particularly with photographic materials, with varying levels of success.  

At the start of one such project, the Morgan Library and Museum found that "the curators…[were] unconvinced that library standards were appropriate for documenting their collections.  They felt that records created in accordance to library cataloging rules would not capture the complexities of the art historical information…"  (Baca 62).  By the end, both the museum and library benefited from the implementation of an integrated catalog, but only after compromises were made about cataloging standards.  

For other institutions, tradition—particularly how an institution views the materials it is cataloging—continues to influence current practice as seen in the following two examples of photographic records found at the New York Public Library and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.  

MFA: About the object

At a basic level, museums handle objects as unique documents for study and interpretation.  Cataloging is shared between curators and registrars, documenting information that can identify "both the physical and contextual characteristics of an artwork.  Artist, title, date, medium, measurements, credit line, and a unique object number are the most common elements" (Seren 31).

As an example, most of these elements can be found in the following record:

In museums, records focus on identifying the physical and
contextual characteristics of an object.

Records also typically list provenance and copyright information. 

Museums are about the object, as an entity with a history and significance.  Provenance identifies and helps establish an object's uniqueness.  "Each [object], once it enters the museum, may have different provenance, life-histories, or some special relationship to other parts of the collection.  This makes them different"  (Latham 51).  

Thus, object type is extremely important, providing a focus for the record and creating a basis for how museums classify their collections.  Photographs possess different artistic qualities than, say, sculptures and vice versa so it would be silly to classify the two together or even describe them similarly.

Also, many records identify geographical areas/nationality of the work or artist since most art and cultural works are studied in context of the originating culture (Baca 65).  Art is often in response to external forces and knowing where an object originated allows for deeper interpretation.  

Something to note: most museum records do not provide access points in their records.  According Murtha Baca, head of Digital Art History Access at the Getty Research Institute, curators feel researchers are more interested in artist, school and period, while access points tread into interpretation of the object (Baca 66).  

In looking at the example, the record adheres to the previously mentioned best practice in museums.  The object is classified as a photograph and identified as a gelatin silver print.  While a date isn't specifically provided for the object, the title places it in the "early Hollywood" era, giving it cultural context.  Access points aren't in the record; however, users are given the opportunity to tag objects and provide their own.  

NYPL: About the information

Libraries, on the other hand, seek to collect published materials, make them available to users and provide access points.  "In library collections, the place and date of publication are the focus.  Both usually appear on the item, and are transcribed along with the name of the publisher…" (Baca 65).  While libraries are known for collecting published works, many have found their collections to include an array of object types, including photographs.  However, the previous principles are often still applied with cataloging these items.  

Photograph found in the NYPL Digital Collection.

Record for the above photograph,
which focuses on date and access points.

A library's primary goal is to make information accessible to the public, so the focus is not always on the uniqueness of the object itself.  "Librarians attach little importance to object type, focusing instead on the information content of their collections"  (Baca 65).  Thus, access points are an essential component of a record.  For photographs, the information is in visual form, making access points all the more important for users to find the information they need.  

In looking at the above example, the object is described more so in relation to other collections at the NYPL rather than as an object.  And in some ways, information is given through the object's connection to a collection (i.e. identifying location as Pontiac, Michigan and linking General Motors to Chrysler, a piece of information that may not have been previously known).  The historical information that can be gained from the image is emphasized rather than the medium that information is presented through.  The photograph is described as a still image and given a date, but that is the extent of the information provided for the object itself.  All other information connects it to like images through access points, or "topics," and other similar collections.  

Looking at the two

Both records provide information the other does not due to tradition in museums and libraries.  Museums often view materials as objects of art, while libraries view materials as containers of information.  Each view has strengths and weaknesses depending on how the user is searching for information and how that information will be used once found.  If a user has a topic in mind but not a particular image, the NYPL record provides great links to other like images and collections to foster "serendipitous" discovery. Users can find images by browsing and get an idea of the scope of the collection.  However, once an object is located, further investigation is hindered.  Information about the object—dimensions, medium—are not given, nor is provenance provided so it's authenticity as an historical artifact cannot be readily established.  

The MFA record does not link the object to others in the collection within the page but only by starting another search.  In this record, records are linked only by artist and classification, not access points.  Users need to have a greater idea of what they are looking for when searching through records since they are not linked already.  However, this record provides more information about the object—not only physical information but about the artist as well—which work together to give contextual information about the photograph.  Provenance is also given and establishes the object's history. This record captures more of the complexities of art information, while the NYPL record emphasizes the historical information found within the image.  

Neither record is better than the other, but a blend of the two that addresses the uniqueness of the object and how users search for information is something to consider when cataloging photographs.  

References

Baca, Murtha, and Elizabeth O'Keefe.  "Sharing Standards and Expertise in the Early 21st Century: Moving Toward a Collaborative, 'Cross-Community' Model for Metadata Creation."  International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control (ICBC) 38, no. 4 (2009): 59-67. 

Hjorland, Birger.  "Documents, memory institutions and information science."  Journal of Documentation 56, no. 1 (2000): 27-41.

Kirchhoff, T., W. Schweibenz, and J. Sieglerschmidt.  "Archives, Libraries, Museums and the Spell of Ubiquitous Knowledge."  Archival Science 8, no. 4 (2008): 251-266. 

Latham, Kiersten F.  "Museum object as document: Using Buckland's information concepts to understand museum experiences."  Journal of Documentation 68, no. 1 (2012): 45-71.

Seren, T., D. Donohue, and L.A. Underwood.  "Integrated Art Documentation: The Guggenheim Perspective."  Art Documentation 20, no. 1 (2001): 31-35.