Art

Includes works on ART history and/or technique, fine arts (drawing, painting, print making, sculpture), digital art, installations, and photography. Also includes books about artists and their works, but not autobiographies of artists. Place autobiographies of artists under BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Place works about collecting art or art objects under ANTIQUES & COLLECTIBLES. Place works discussing technique from a craft viewpoint under CRAFTS & HOBBIES. "ART -- History" may be used for works on the history of Western or non-Western art.

I'd like to see a division between books ABOUT Art, such as Art History books or Art Criticism books (those books that are predominantly words) and those that are predominantly picture books.

a.) why?
b.) that's a sliding scale (unless you would limit the picture books to books with no text at all)
c.) wouldn't people find it confusing to have to look for books about the same artist - for instance - in two different places?

So where do we put the gazillions of books about the history of art AND architecture?

(Same question posted in the architecture thread)

>4 Nicole_VanK:
This issue came up in the initial round of testing. I still haven't seen any satisfactory answer, either.

I know, that's why I'm bringing it up again.

I'm not holding out too much hope.

At least I can make a good case for tresspassing if they try to reorganize my bookshelves for me. ;)

> 3

a) Because my husband has over five hundred books OF photography. Most of them have limited or no text at all.
b) Not really. Most of his photography books have very little text, which is why I brought it up. I have certain art books with pictures by Vermeer, but only a few ABOUT Vermeer. I consider them very different books.
c) Wouldn't it be odd to buy a book OF the works of Picasso and find that it only had pictures of his works and no discussion of his work. Then there are books ABOUT Picasso with few actual pictures of his works (mostly because of copyright restrictions).

>8 kd9: I agree with BarkingMatt on this.

1. A coffee-table book of the works of Ansel Adams, with only a short biography.
2. A book discussing Ansel Adams' technique (and/or the technique of the F/128(?) club) which provided specific examples of the use of these techniques found in his (their) works.
3. A nearly picture-less book about Ansel Adams' life and the impact of his work on the art of photography.

It seems like a sliding scale to me, unless the middle one gets thrown into Technique, along with books like Faster Smarter Digital Photography, which is a how-to.

> 8 :

Wouldn't it be odd to buy a book OF the works of Picasso and find that it only had pictures of his works and no discussion of his work. Then there are books ABOUT Picasso with few actual pictures of his works (mostly because of copyright restrictions).

Well, yes, obviously I'm not denying there's a real difference between those. But I assume you're talking about buying books over the internet. In a bookstore this "confusion" couldn't happen.

Either way, I thought this classification system was to be primarily for libraries - not book sellers. And in a library, I would prefer to find Picasso "picture books" shelved next to the analytical and historical works about him.

Anyway, maybe something like this could satisfy both points of view:

Art
>Artists by Name
>>Biographies
>>Analytical
>>Picture Books

Maybe with one or more levels between "Art" and "Artists by Name" though. Perhaps we should first subdivide in disciplines (painting, sculpture, etc.) or in periods / schools (renaissance, baroque, surrealism, impressionism, etc.).

That would be tricky though, since many artists either were / are involved in several art forms, and / or made part of several "schools". Picasso is a good example - he started as a fairly "academic" painter, did some stuff that was roughly "post-impressionist", created "cubism", etc. AND he wasn't just a painter but is also quite famous as a sculptor (and ceramic artist - though in his case that could be seen as mostly sculptural).

>11 Nicole_VanK: Alphabetical ordering can get a little annoying, especially if the library has a large art section, but it removes all the problem associated with style/discipline division. In other news, I like your sub-levels.

> 12:

it removes all the problem associated with style/discipline division

Unfortunately only for books about individual artists.

>13 Nicole_VanK: Oh, right. And I'm the one who used the example of the F/128 Club. Go me.

Please check out this thread (http://www.librarything.com/topic/60594) for a link to the new OSC blog and a call for specific volunteer involvement. Thanks!

Hello Art Forum,

I've been following your discussion and wanted to give you a heads up that I will be posting my suggestions for the Art second levels.

In terms of my experience, I worked in a public library devoted exclusively to art and music for a number of years in Glendale, CA. Currently I am pursuing my masters in library science. At the same time, I work as a graduate assistant in an academic library in which most of the collection consists of art related works. Bottomline is that I feel pretty comfortable in an art library.

I believe that I have addressed some of your concerns that have been mentioned in this forum especially in terms of where to place those works that are either heavy on text or consists mostly of plates (pictures).

I'm anticipating some insightful discussion and hopefully we all can work collaboratively to flesh out the different levels for Art.

Methodology: After working in an art library for a number of years that utilized the Dewey Decimal System in the classification of its works, I saw how difficult it was to introduce any new and/or different material in the collection that wasn’t specifically addressed by Melville Dewey in his initial design.

When designing the second and third levels for Art, I initially intended to build levels on a hierarchal level based on the study of art starting from the broadest sense with the reference works and working through history and criticism and individual artists towards specific techniques.

You will notice that I focused heavily on the influence of Western/European Art in the beginning of the History and Criticism 2nd level, figuring that the art collections in American public libraries would contain more of these works then any other.

I think I may have solved the issue about the separation of artist’s from their works by adding Works as a third level to Individual Artists. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about this idea especially if you think it rectifies the problem of the separation of those works devoted to an artist's oeuvre (picture/coffee table books) from the monographs and critical texts.

My intent in developing these levels is twofold. My attempt at designing the Art 2nd levels is part of an assignment for a class called Knowledge Organization. But I am in all honesty very enthusiastic in implementing a new classification system in our public libraries that will facilitate the process of locating and retrieving works by patrons and also to make life a little easier for a library’s staff in the maintenance of their collection.

Art Reference
---->Dictionaries
---->Encyclopedias
---->Surveys

Art History & Criticism
---->Prehistoric
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Ancient/Antiquity
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Islamic
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Medieval
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Renaissance
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->17th Century
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->18th Century
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->19th Century
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->20th Century
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Late 20th Century/Contemporary
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Asian Art (China, Japan, India, SE Asia, Middle East)
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->African Art
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Art of the Americas
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes
---->Pan Pacific/Oceanic Art
------>Principles & Theories
------>Subjects & Themes

Individual Artists (A to Z)
---->Monographs/Retrospectives
---->Works
------>Catalogs
-------->Exhibitions
-------->Raisonnés
---->Criticism

Fine Art Mediums/Techniques
---->Drawing
---->Painting
---->Sculpture
---->Printmaking
---->Photography
---->Installation
---->Conceptual Art
---->Multi Media
---->Digital Art
---->Body Art & Tattoo
---->Graffiti & Street Art
---->Native/Indigenous Art
---->Other

Museums & Collections
---->Museum Studies
---->Exhibition Catalogs
---->Conservation & Preservation

Art Miscellaneous
---->Education
------>Study
------>Schools
------>Workshops
------>Instructional
---->Teaching
------>Aids
------>Outreach
---->Business Aspects

Questions/Issues:

Any thoughts on the delineation of the periods in the History and Criticism 3rd levels?
-When devising the 3rd levels for this list, I consulted the Wikipedia entry on Art Periods and a website devoted to Art History created by Professor Christopher Witcombe of Sweet Briar College.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_periods
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html
-Again I arranged this list mindful of the art collections in American public libraries. I am open to suggestions to improve on this list.

Any thoughts on missing 3rd levels in Fine Art Mediums and Techniques, Museum & Collections and Art Miscellaneous 2nd levels?

Any thoughts on levels that shouldn’t be included?

I look forward to reading your thoughts and suggestions.

As the SO of a museum professional, I cringe a little at a museum studies category being shelved under art. That would be kind of like shelving library studies under literature.

After just a quick look, I like your basic outline. I'm glad to see things like installation, multi-media, and street art included in the scheme.

I wonder if the individual artists category should be divided in a fashion similar to the Art History category to keep artists from the same schools and eras together. But I only wonder, I'm not convinced either way.

Exhibition catalogs are included in both the individual artist heading and the museum collections heading. I would assume a catalog of a museum exhibition that featured a single artist would go with the individual artist, while an exhibition of two or more artists would go in the museum category. Yes?

>18 comfypants: - Dewey's 708 classification (Galleries, museums & private collections) falls under the arts.

There's another Dewey listing, 069, for Museum science, but this would appear to be a very general category (for books on the Smithsonian, for instance).

Books on non-art museums (Fortey's Dry Storeroom No. 1: The Secret Life of the Natural History Museum, for example) could also fall into Natural History.

>20 radio_papel:
Books on "galleries, museums & private collections" makes sense here (depending on how that's defined), since I imagine that description to be of books which are essentially talking about art. Museum studies is something else.

FWIW As a non-librarian with an interest in this area, I feel I could find what I was looking for using the scheme in #17.

>22 kevmalone:
Ditto.

>19 mattsya:

In terms of the catalogs, you assumed correctly. That's exactly what I had in mind.

I like your idea of organizing the individual artists level by art periods. I figured though having the artists arranged alphabetically would facilitate finding texts on a specific artist on the shelves especially in a public library. I was trying to appeal to a larger audience.

> 18, 20, 21

I believe it's relevant to have museum studies (or museology) as it's own third level under Museums and Collections, because in essence it's the study of how to organize and manage museums and museum collections.

(The Smithsonian's definition of Museum Studies can be found here: http://museumstudies.si.edu/)

Perhaps cross reference museum studies within the levels that deal specifically with academic programs and then have the libraries who choose to use this classification system decide which area to place Museum Studies that best suits their collection either in Art or Education or Careers.

But not all museums are art museums. Wouldn't this be more appropriate somewhere else?

>26 jjwilson61:

Valid point!

Maybe we should contact BISAC and have the powers that be remove it from their Art second levels.

Though I still think that if a work or a series of works are devoted to the study of managing an art collection then wouldn't it be beneficial to have those works in Art?

Again I like providing options for public libraries. But at this point I could go either way.

I'm sure there are books that are in some way about museums that belong under art, but museum studies is a distinct field. If it fits anywhere in the current top level categories, it's in General Knowledge along with "works on libraries and archives."

ETA:
And after conferring with my convenient in-home Museum Studies expert, she has confirmed that Museum Studies absolutely belongs in the same place as library studies.

Also, The New Museum Registration Methods is a good example of a Museum Studies book, if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't doubt that running an art museum is significantly different than running a science & technology museum, so it might make some sense to categorize a book on the former under Art. But then I think a good case could be made to keep it with the other more general museology books. So which is it?

Three thoughts.

1. I appreciate your comment about focussing on collections in US public libraries, but perhaps you could be accused of Eurocentricity in the 3rd level categories under 'Art History & Criticism'. To be fair to Asian/Islamic/African/etc. art maybe they should be on the same level as 'European' art and have the same 4th level categories allowing for period?

You might need a different label than 'European', of course: I would include artists like Whistler, Singer Sargent, Hopper, Pollock and Warhol under this heading. Presumably your 'Art of the Americas' is covering native American art.

2. You mention photography in media/techniques but nowhere else. Is your intention that all photography ranks pari passu with other art forms?

3. Do you want to claim (auto)biographies of artists here, or do they go to the (auto)biography top level category?

I think it would be silly to have a top-level Biography category but have most of the actual biographies scattered around the rest of the hierarchy.

>29 jjwilson61:
One could argue that running a music library is significantly different from running a public library, so you should put library studies books that relate to music under Music. But why would you do that if there is already a place for books about libraries?

>30 abbottthomas:
You're right, this breakdown could be accused of being too Eurocentric, but it does basically reflect the way art history survey books present the history of the world's art. In fact these sub-headings are almost the exact same as the chapter headings in Gardner's Art Through the Ages. Most library art history collections are rather Eurocentric anyway, so it makes sense to have the divisions more geared to Western art. There simply have been a lot more books written about art of the Western tradition. Whether that's right or not is up to debate, but the fact remains.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that despite its emphasis on Western art, this system does reflect a generally accepted way to divide art history.

"2. You mention photography in media/techniques but nowhere else. Is your intention that all photography ranks pari passu with other art forms?"
You could say the same about every discipline listed in the medium/techniques category. Drawing, painting, and tattoos are also only mentioned here. Are you thinking that photography deserves its own, broader category? I just want to be clear on what you mean.

Did Tim really mean for OSC to be for European and American libraries? I really think the attempt should be made to make the categories as geographically and culturally neutral as possible.

I'm one of the students who worked on the ClassifyThis levels above and just wanted to comment in regard to

>30 abbottthomas:

I think it's difficult to create a system without bias (but noble to strive to do so). History is biased. The field of art history, in particular, has a fairly long tradition of "Eurocentric" scholarship; hence, there are simply more books on Western art. I would wager this is especially true for US public libraries. It seems that the scheme proposed by ClassifyThis addresses this issue of quantity, while still making space for books on the art of (admittedly) under-represented cultures.

That being said, I wanted to envision what one of those Non-Western third-levels (as abbotthomas suggests >30 abbottthomas:) would look like broken down into fourth levels. I looked at wikipedia, checked it against Oxford/Grove Online (with few inconsistencies, I might add), consulted the Getty AAT and looked at the subject headings in the OPAC of the New York Public Library. This is what I came up with for Japan:

-Pre-Historic (Grove) or Early Historic (Getty) (to 794 AD)
-----includes Jomon, Yayoi, Kofun, Asuka and Nara Periods
-Heian Period (794-1185)
-Kamakura-Momoyama Periods (1185-1600)
-Edo Period (1600-1868)
-Meiji Period (1868-1912)
-Modern? Twentieth Century? (1912- )
*or
-Taisho (1912-26)
-Showa (1926-89)
-Contemporary

Ignoring the fact that as we approach modern art, these regional (and period) divisions are no longer useful, this looks like a scheme that would be appropriate for an academic library.

It seems to me that egalitarianism might have to be sacrificed in favor of designing a system that is functional.

>34 jjwilson61: Art and culture are so inherently intertwined, it would be impossible and foolish to try to remain "culturally neutral."

What 35 has done for Japanese art could also be done for each cultural art tradition. And probably should be.

And also as 35 pointed out, cultural distinctions are less prevalent post-World War II, and it may make sense to have one late-20th century to present category for the entire world.

By culturally neutral I just meant that the categories shouldn't favor any cultures over others.

I think that #34 is crucial - does OSC have global ambitions? If so, we have to move away from Eurocentricity no matter how we were brought up.

Having said that, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find more books on Impressionists than the Meiji period in a Japanese public library. #35 is impressive and would be hard work to do across the board without specialist knowledge.

>33 mattsya: re Photography. Photography can be clearly an art form but may be closer to reportage / journalism. My question was whether photographs would nestle alongside painting, sculpture, etc. in all the 2nd level headings

>30 abbottthomas:, 31

Auto(biographies) fall under the established OSC Biographies & Autobiographies top level.

>28 comfypants:, 29

Museum Studies: Valid arguments are being made on both sides. I’m convinced to think that perhaps Museum Studies should be removed from the 2nd level of Museum and Collections and moved into the OSC top level Career. Perhaps Museum Studies can fall under a Professional/Graduate Program level in Careers.
For example:
Career Top Level
-->Higher Education/Academic Programs
---->Professional/Graduate Programs
------>Museum Studies/Museology

Am I right to assume that the general consensus is to remove Museum Studies from the 2nd level of Museum and Collection?

>38 abbottthomas:

There’s been endless debate on whether or not photography is a fine art medium/technique. My reasoning for placing photography as a 3rd level under the Fine Arts Mediums/Techniques 2nd level was that quite frankly I’m use to finding photography books in the art section of a public library. For example, I’d rather see photography books on the works by the cooperative Magnum Photos in an art section not in a technology section.

But besides the Technology Top Level there doesn’t seem to be an OSC top level that could support a photography collection. Where would works devoted to photojournalism or reportage go, abbottthomas, utilizing the established OSC top levels?

Any suggestions?

> 38

Similarly, in earlier ages prints were often used for "journalism". But should the way the medium is used make such a difference for this classification? Any photograph - journalistic, snapshot, or independent art - is still art work.

When I use the word "art" I don't just mean "high art", but maybe that's just me.

>40 ClassifyThis:
I think the only people who have made arguments for keeping Museum Studies here have said they could go either way. Incidentally, "Conservation & Preservation" is an aspect of Museum Studies as well (I don't think that's been explicitly pointed out yet).

It doesn't go in Career; it goes wherever library/information sciences goes (currently General Knowledge). Career is for "guides to succeeding in particular careers, career building, etc."

39> I have no idea what you mean. When I used the term Biography I was using it as a shorthand for Biography & Autobiography.

As for museology, I raised the question but I agree that it makes sense to keep them together and I don't have a problem with their current location.

Would anyone here care to comment on some second-levels I proposed for Design?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/58513

Incidentally, "Conservation & Preservation" is an aspect of Museum Studies as well

Only to some extent. Obviously museum often have a leading role, but art in private collections faces conservation and restoration problems as well.

However, I agree this may not be the right top level category. Much can be said for keeping all restoration / conservation stuff together. Under top level "Antiques & Collectibles" maybe???

>46 Nicole_VanK:
Wikipedia defines Conservation/Restoration nicely as "a profession devoted to the preservation of cultural heritage for the future." They also say that the American Institute for Conservation's members include "librarians and archivists." Antiques & Collectibles sounds wrong with all that in mind. I still think it belongs in General Knowledge (if not under Museum Studies, near it), along with what I'm secretly thinking of as Things Addressed By The Institute of Museum and Library Services.

I wouldn't go blind on Wikipedia, but it can indicate that this is the way the field is perceived. Yes, obviously there are librarians and archivists in such organizations - books and documents can need restoration / conservation too.

But the preservation of cultural heritage for the future... Doesn't that suggest that we are talking about stuff that is either antique, or collectible, or both? But I admit I'm not entirely comfortable with putting it in "Antiques & Collectibles" myself either (hence the three question marks).

Another problem with Antiques & Collectibles is that its scope notes specifically exclude books about objects which are covered in other sections (as it needs to, otherwise the entire Art category would go there :) ). And I think it's important to keep Conservation/Preservation/Restoration books in one place*, if only because the most useful conservation books to non-specialists are likely to be general works which cover the conservation of objects in multiple areas.

*On the other hand, when you think of books on, say, the preservation of antique furniture, just about anyone would look under Antiques for that**. So maybe I should say books on Conservation/Preservation/Restoration from the perspective of "the preservation of cultural heritage for the future" (which would probably include any book on art conservation) should stay in one place.
**Although I understand that one of the best sources on that topic is unambiguously a Museum Studies book.

I've been rethinking along the same lines. Though I would personally love to see all conservation / restoration stuff close together, I do think that might get confusing for the general public. I mean, there are people who restore old steam engines for example... Shouldn't information about that sort of thing go under technology? People probably wouldn't in a thousand years think of looking for that stuff under "antiques & collectibles".

So, maybe publications on art restoration / conservation here, on architectural restoration under architecture, etc? And only put the very general works on conservation theory and such wherever Museum Studies, Library Science &c. will go (wherever that may be)?

Suppose someone's researching art conservation, so he looks under Art, and finds the handful of conservation books that are specific to art. He would have no idea that there's a lot more information on art conservation elsewhere.

Or, suppose he looks under Art, and finds no conservation books. He has to ask someone where they are or look up the subject in the catalog. Maybe a little more work, but he's sure to find what he's looking for if the library has it.

I don't imagine there are a lot public library books about restoring steam engines as cultural objects, at least not "how-to" sorts of books. There are probably books about the restored steam engines themselves, but that wouldn't be a conservation/restoration book. Antiques and collectibles are more problematic, since a lot of people want to know how to care for those objects, and there's potential overlap with the "cultural heritage" perservation field.

Unless there's an area I'm forgetting about, I think conservation/preservation/restoration books could live quite happily in just two top-levels, Antiques & Collectibles and General Knowledge, without confusing any patrons (that's assuming you accept the argument in my first two paragraphs, which I admit is thin).

In terms of classifying works on conservation and preservation, I wonder what would work best for the user? I think what could work is placing general conservation/restoration/preservation works under the same level perhaps Museum Studies found in the top level, General Knowledge. But in terms of classifying those works that deal specifically with the conservation of a particular object, the user would be better served if that work is placed under the top level that best supports it.

For example:

General Knowledge >>Museum Studies >>Conservation & Preservation >>The National Trust Manual of Housekeeping: The Care of Collections in Historic Houses Open to the Public

Art >> Fine Art Mediums/Techniques >> Painting >> Mural Painting >> Conservation & Preservation>>The Conservation of wall paintings : proceedings of a symposium organized by the Courtauld Institute of Art and the Getty Conservation Institute, London, July 13-16, 1987

Antiques & Collectibles >>Conservation & Preservation >>Restoring and preserving antiques

For that patron who is researching conservation and preservation in general (perhaps a student of museology) she can go to the General Knowledge Section to find the works she needs. Chances are though she'll have to consult the OPAC beforehand because it is not clear (after reading the scope notes) that Museum Studies would fall under General Knowledge.

For that patron who is studying mural painting including the conservation and preservation of mural painting, she can go right into the Art section without needing to check a catalog.

For that patron who needs a resource which illustrates how to preserve that antique chair she found at a flea market (for example), she can go right into the Antiques and Collectibles section without needing to check a catalog.

It seems more intuitive for a user who is looking for a specific book on conservation and preservation to go directly to that obvious section of the collection.

Unfortunately there is the risk that a user may be running around to different sections of a library to find relevant works on all aspects of conservation and preservation.

>52 ClassifyThis:
So you're suggesting that there should be about 14 Conservation & Preservation sections under Art alone?

Non-librarian chiming in again.

If I were to look for preservation/conservation works; and I have in the past for both antiques (furniture) and artwork (pencil drawings and photographs); I would first look under Mediums and Techniques for the type of art in question.

I would only ever go to General Knowledge as a last resort.

>53 comfypants: Possibly. Most classification systems put the conservation of specific materials under that material's category (conservation of photographs under photography), but general conservation (theory, conservation studies, conservation and preservation of library materials, etc.) under a General Knowledge area. I think this is intuitive, as kevmalone suggests above.

Revised Levels

I removed Museum Studies and Conservation and Preservation from the 2nd level Museums & Collections.

Art Reference
---->Dictionaries
---->Encyclopedias
---->Surveys

Art History & Criticism
---->Prehistoric
---->Ancient/Antiquity
---->Islamic
---->Medieval
---->Renaissance
---->17th Century
---->18th Century
---->19th Century
---->20th Century
---->Late 20th Century/Contemporary
---->Asian Art (China, Japan, India, SE Asia, Middle East)
---->African Art
---->Art of the Americas
---->Pan Pacific/Oceanic Art

Individual Artists (A to Z)
---->Monographs/Retrospectives
---->Works
------>Catalogs
-------->Exhibitions
-------->Raisonnés
---->Criticism

Fine Art Mediums/Techniques
---->Drawing
---->Painting
---->Sculpture
---->Printmaking
---->Photography
---->Installation
---->Conceptual Art
---->Multi Media
---->Digital Art
---->Body Art & Tattoo
---->Graffiti & Street Art
---->Native/Indigenous Art
---->Other
Note: Conservation & Preservation as a level that falls under the specific technique if applicable

Museums & Collections
---->Exhibition Catalogs
---->Monographs/Retrospectives
Note: I added Monographs/Retrospectives to include works about specific collectors and/or collections that couldn't fall under biography.
For example: Guide to the collection
by Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

Art Miscellaneous
---->Education
------>Study
-------->Schools
-------->Workshops
-------->Instructional
------>Teaching
-------->Aids
-------->Outreach
---->Business Aspects

Does the OSC have "global ambitions"? It's not addressed where geographically speaking the OSC will be utilized in the project's welcome statement.

I'm just curious if this has been discussed in other forums? Though I haven't come across any entries while reading through some of the forums.

I realize that Dewey is the most prevalent in terms of classification systems used in the world. My question for OSC members who aren't American is what classification system is used in your public library? Is it useful and/or appropriate for the collection?

I'm just curious. Maybe this discussion should have its own forum.

#56 looks pretty good to me.

My attention to this thread drifted and I realise that I didn't reply to a specific question (>41 ClassifyThis:) about photography.

I take your reference to photography under fine art mediums/techniques to comprise books about photography rather than books of photographs. Like you, I would expect to find Magnum Photo's work in the Art section; am I right to think that such books would be a sub-division of 20th Century art in the same way as, say, a book of Picasso drawings or Giacometti sculpture would be?

The question of photojournalism remains a problem. Some such works are likely to end up with their subject matter - anthropology, history, travel/geography or whatever. A book like Wilfred Thesiger's Desert, Marsh and Mountain is as much about photography as the text but the prime concern is with the Arabs, the subjects of the book.

Howabout Roger Fenton's photographs of the Crimean War, though? I've seen these reproduced in military history works but have only seen the original prints in an exhibition in the Tate Gallery - clearly accepted as 'art'.

I think there has to be a very fuzzy edge between photography of record and art photography; in reality, there is usually a consensus pushing any given work into one category or the other.

>57 ClassifyThis: I agree ;-)

http://www.librarything.com/topic/63960