Not Compliant
Figure One
I found my photographs in the Metropolitan Museum's Online Catalog. They actually do fairly well with the titles of their photos. It was actually a lot harder than I thought it would be to find one that didn't comply. I'm sure there were more than a few but I wanted to find a better example, and I happened across this one.
The artist of the photo is unknown, and the title of the image is simply Unidentified Woman in brackets. According to rule 1.1,2,1.2: "An inscription on the work, particularly if it is an integral part of the
work (for example, a title inscribed in the plate of a print) or it was
inscribed by the artist." (pg. 52) With this in mind, I would change the title to what is inscribed on the photo it self Will You Be Mine, assuming that the artist, or manufacturer of the print placed the frame around the photo. I would maybe put that the woman is unknown in the Notes section.
Figure Two
This title complies with rule 1.2.2.1 "For the preferred Title, use a concise descriptive title in the language of the catalog
record (English in the United States). It should be a recent title provided by
the owning institution, a concise inscribed title, or a title provided by the artist, if
known and if it is sufficiently descriptive." (pg. 58) Because the artist is still alive and, I think, the museum bought them from him, he provided the title himself. The photograph is part of a bigger collection by the artist, and one of the other photos states that Gabriel Orozco inscribed some of the other photos, so it stands to reason that he is the one responsible for naming it and the MET used that title name.
Work Cited:
Metropolitan Museum Online Collection:
Figure Two: http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/284614?=&imgno=0&tabname=label
Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images Online Version.
http://cco.vrafoundation.org/downloads/PartTwo_1-ObjectNaming.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment