LCRI 21-1B2 and 21-17B in RDA

[round of messages between Sherman Clarke and representatives of LC Policy and Standards Division (formerly CPSO)]


----- Original Message -----

From: Judith A Kuhagen <>

Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:00 pm

Subject: Question for you (LCRI 21.1B2)


Cc: Barbara B Tillett <>, David W Reser <>

> Sherman,


> I want to consult your cataloging memory about the section "Art

> Catalogs" in LCRI 21.1B2 and also about LCRI 21.17B.


> Policy and Standards Division is revising the content of some LCRIs

> for use with RDA as LC Policy Statements.  When we looked at LCRI

> 21.1B2 today, we realized we didn't know why the section on "Art

> Catalogs" there had application only to two or more artists and why

> the LCRI 21.17B instruction about works of a single artist should have

> a different outcome.


> Barbara remembers extensive negotiations on these topics.  However,

> now we're wondering if we can have a general principle about art

> catalogs regardless of the number of artists represented.  AACR2

> 21.1B2 does make the distinction between catalogs that represent the

> resources of the body issuing the catalog vs. catalogs of traveling

> exhibitions, etc.; that distinction was carried over to AACR2.


> So,  we'd appreciate your thoughts, background, etc.


> See you in Boston!


> Judy





Oops. This message slipped under  the radar until now. I am using my account more regularly than the one, not that the radar doesn't blur now and again in either account. It's less likely to get lost at gmail though.

I re-read LCRI 21.1B2 and I think the text is a fairly complete and long way of saying that 21.1B2 applies to art catalogs unless 21.17B applies. There are a number of art libraries that have fought the outcome of 21.17B and have entered catalogs under an artist only in cases where the artist actually had a chief role in preparing the catalog. I think some of them even entered picture books without authors or from a single collection under title rather than artist. As more and more of the idiosyncratic practices have fallen away under the pressure of copy availability, I think many have given up the fight.

I must admit that I'm not sure if RDA will provide a better solution to the one or more artist issue. I think it has always been difficult for us art catalogers to justify main entry under, say, Leonardo for a poster reproduction of the Mona Lisa but not under Leonardo if you stick it between book covers. Hence, 21.17B rears its head. At the same time, a catalog of the Leonardo holdings at the National Gallery seems a natural for main entry under the gallery. I'll go check RDA and see if that changes my sense of the need for LCRI 21.1B2.

Again, sorry that I didn't see this message before ALA.





[e-discussed with Elizabeth Lilker and sent to CAC]





Since we are in a time pinch to get the LCRI replacements done and sent to ALA Publishing for incorporation to the RDA Toolkit, we made a preliminary decision to apply RDA (i.e., AACR2 21.1B2) as written, and apply it also to the catalog of a single artist in addition to more than one artist, when appropriate.  If we get feedback later from the art cataloging community that catalogs of a single artist emanating from a corporate body and listing the works held by that corporate body shouldn't be entered under that corporate body we can reconsider and reinstate the exception.  So, we're still interested in your feedback, but for the first go-around we'll see if folks can apply RDA as written.

Hope all is well.


Dave [Reser]