Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 8 Aug 1995 16:20:00 PDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
We deal with a lot of posters, which also are untitled. We have established
a set of rules for consistently titling things; we then devise a title for
untitled objects, and append a "Title devised by cataloger" note. This
works well for us, but may be specific to the material we deal with (popular
music-related stuff). It allows us to put some recognizable information in
the title field, for the reason you have identified (computer-generated
labels, and title searches).
What do other people out there think of this?
Jim Fricke
Experience Music Project
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
We are working on a new computerized catalog and have hit a new hitch. I am
including a layout which will take some of the fields from the "catalog
card" and use them to produce labels for the objects, which will look
something like this:
Title (or name of object)
Provenance and date
Acc. #
Donor & Date of donation
The problem comes with paintings and prints for which we have little
information and no formal title. Do we say "Untitled" or is that in itself
a kind of title within the art community? Do we say "Title Unknown"? Six or
eight of those in a row could get pretty funny. Do we say "Watercolor",
etc.? Any suggestions here?
Ivy Fleck Strickler Phone 215-895-1637
Drexel University Fax 215-895-4917
Nesbitt College of Design Arts [log in to unmask]
Philadelphia, PA 19104
|
|
|