Blog Week 4: Catalog

I found fitting that this week’s readings had to with cataloging since I recently did a museum report of Diane Thater: The Sympathy Imagination exhibit in which I state how the experience of the art is in itself the art that Thater is creating, in other words she is creating an experience. When we discuss about how we are to catalog cultural pieces of art, a major question can sometimes be “what is art?”. In the reading, I was very pleased that under what is an object, the term is broad enough to accept essentially anything a  human creates is deems as art.

What I like about this document is that it almost begins to sound like a guideline of not only what we consider art, but what data is used in the creation of cataloging records. The sections of cataloging pieces or architecture are fascinating to me because they feel as if they needed to be added because they did not fit into the umbrella terms of what are is and what are its characteristics. For example, paintings and sculptures are similar in that they have in formation like what material was used to make them, artist, and city but with things like architecture, there are different data points that are relevant. There in lies the beauty of this document, it seems like it is possible to simply update the document when new items or forms of objects become art. Just like the exhibit that I observed at LACMA, there are new forms and modes of art and cataloging items with different physical properties will need to be made when we begin to archive and gain data on some of the most innovated forms of art that begin to arise. This document really leads the way for how we should catalog certain objects and what cataloging consists of, from core values to relationships with other work. I think that agreeing a set system of catalog helps set up a standard which helps fight some of the problems digital humanists face with so many different ontology sets that we work with.

3 thoughts on “Blog Week 4: Catalog”

  1. This looks like a very interesting exhibit to visit! I agree, “art” is so broad and there are so many different ways to express them that it becomes harder to classify and categorize them. Especially with contemporary art, some objects don’t fit into a category making it harder for catalogers to properly record the information. The problem is, how do we agree a set system of catalog without creating a new one that becomes lost once again on an island of various ontologies.

  2. When I read the CCO it hadn’t occurred to me that it was defining what we consider art. I love that you picked up on that and were able to connect it to the exhibit at LACMA. Given the performance/experience nature of Diane Thater: The Sympathy Imagination, how would you catalogue it?

  3. I love that you related this back to the exhibit you visited – it looks like such a cool place and I definitely want to check it out now. I like that you interpreted it in a way to see that everything a human creates as art. I think that’s an important point that can maybe be lost in the cataloging process.

Comments are closed.