To create MARC records for the physical sculptures of Rogers\u2019 \u201cNydia, the Blind Flower Girl of Pompeii\u201d and \u201cRuth Gleaning\u201d, the \u201cArtMARC Sourcebook: Cataloging Art, Architecture, and Their Visual Images\u201d was used (McRae & White, 1998). \u00a0The book addressed the cataloging of sculptures and provided an outstanding example of the essential MARC fields for recording the Rogers sculptures. \u00a0After \u201cNydia\u201d was created, the same standards were used to complete a MARC record for \u2018Ruth Gleaning.\u201d<\/p>\n
I went through every MARC field to correlate the information with the data provided by the Met\u2019s catalog record for the work. \u00a0MARC fields for conservation and condition reporting such as 596, 597-599 were not utilized in recording the Rogers sculptures because this type of data was not provided by the Met. \u00a0I found that the information made available on the Met website was fairly basic for most casual users. \u00a0The Met may have recorded conservation and condition recording data in their original record, but there was no mention of the length to which object was vetted.<\/p>\n
Leaving those MARC fields out of the picture, I was able to create most of the other MARC fields for \u201cNydia\u201d by following the MARC example in the sourcebook. \u00a0I did note a few changes in how the catalog data was coded in MARC. \u00a0Field 530 was an opportunity to point towards a less conventional representation of the actual sculpture. \u00a0I noted the object image on file but I also decided to use the Met\u2019s 3D scan and object as an \u201cillustration\u201d of the original sculpture. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The original language of this guideline suggests that the illustration is a \u201cpublished reproduction\u201d (McRae & White, 1998). \u00a0This makes sense for an illustration, but I wanted to use this field for the 3D scan and model. \u00a0The working group dug a bit deeper and revealed that the 3D scan is actually an adaptation according to RDA section, 6.27.1.5 Adaptations and Revisions; the 3D scan \u201csubstantially changes the nature and content of that work\u201d (RDA Toolkit, 2010). \u00a0Given this information, I would suggest the guideline for MARC field 530 be changed to include published reproductions or adaptations.<\/p>\n
One last area of change and decision-making was in the MARC fields, 650 for subjects and 655 for object types. \u00a0The latter informed the change of subject headings for the 650 field. \u00a0655 requires the object type to be validated by a controlled vocabulary such as Getty AAT or LCTGM. \u00a0This resulted in choosing \u201csculpture (visual work)\u201d for the object type. \u00a0I decided that this naming authority should be reflected in the subject headings as well, despite what the Met posted in the original catalog record. \u00a0As a result, I chose sculpture (visual work) and marble (rock) from the Getty AAT.<\/p>\n
-Jennifer Ann Peters<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
To create MARC records for the physical sculptures of Rogers\u2019 \u201cNydia, the Blind Flower Girl of Pompeii\u201d and \u201cRuth Gleaning\u201d, the \u201cArtMARC Sourcebook: Cataloging Art, Architecture, and Their Visual Images\u201d was used (McRae & White, 1998). \u00a0The book addressed the cataloging of sculptures and provided an outstanding example of the \u2026 Continue reading