CCO in Action - Collection Context Video Transcript CCO directs the cataloger to: “Establish the logical focus of each Work Record,” essentially, to determine, “what are you cataloging?” Today I’m going to walk you through three examples to show how the use and context your institution brings to its digital assets, can shape the way your cataloging is done, even with something as concrete as physical works in your possession. We’ll start with a basic work and image relationship." A clear example of this relationship is seen in the museum. This statuette of a howling dog, in the Smith Museum of Art, has a Work record in the Museum’s MIMSY database that describe its attributes: accession number, measurements, creation culture, location, and so on. When the museum had the statuette digitally photographed in 2010, these images were given to me at the Imaging Center with accompanying image records for each. The information in these records include the filename, a description of the view, the date the photograph was taken, rights management information , and the photographer who photographed the object. Multiple image records are attached to a single work record, just as multiple photographs can be taken of a single work. But the logical focus of each Work Record to built works, visual art, and cultural artifacts is not always clear as the previous example. At first blush, it would appear that the logical focus for the image on the left is the built work, the Taj Mahal. But additional context to this image will significantly alter the focus. A few years ago, the Imaging Center was asked to scan a set of stereograph cards. Taken by American educator James Ricalton between 1891 and 1900, this set illustrates the daily life and major architectural works of India in the late 19th century. It is the stereograph collection as a cultural creation that interests the requestor, Professor Rotman, and his students. The stereoscope collection itself IS the cultural object. Created by James Ricalton, depicting not only India, but the 19th century American view on India using technology of the period. The “work”focus is on the individual stereographs themselves, connected to a parent work record for entire set, “India Through the Stereoscope: A Journey Through Hindustan.”The Taj Mahal appears as the subject, in this case as a TGN monument record. This relationship can be seen in the title, which (using Smith’s in-house title styling) concatenates the title of the parent work with the title of the child work. The relationship is also seen in the Relationship element, where the stereograph is “part ofÓ the collection, in accordance with the CCO. individual child work records for each stereograph card were were made and attached to three image records: the front view of the images, the back view with text, and a third, altered view of the front that would allow the user to see the image on a 3- D television, recreating the experience of a stereoscope. The individual image information, like the previous example, is recorded in the filename, a description of the view, the rights statement and so on. In this case, the view description describes not only what the viewer sees, but how the image can be viewed with 3-D equipment, recreating the view seen in a 19th century stereoscope. The description for this image reflects use as well as content. My final example has come up as we’ve deaccessioned our art history photo study collection. It was used for student study in the days before digital image repositories. In some cases, these photos were original photography by the faculty, and as we deaccession this collection, we have been retaining these objects for our archives. Some photos, like those of art historian Clarence Kennedy, are considered works of art in and of themselves and due to their value have been moved to the museum. The Imaging Center would catalog the work being depicted, as our art history faculty and students are more likely to be looking for the Kouros of Tenea than a photograph by a professor from the mid-20th century. In this case, the photographer, Clarence Kennedy would be noted in the view description, but the worktype, date, repository, and subject would all refer the 5th century Kouros. Here are two photos of Madonna and Child reliefs by Rossellino: one from a bound volume of Kennedy photographs donated to the museum by a collector, and the other donated from the Imaging Center from our photo collection. The work on the left was cataloged as a bound volume of prints by Kennedy. From the Museum’s perspective, the focus is Kennedy, and the work is his photograph. And their cataloging reflects this focus. Kennedy is the creator, and the date, worktype and measurements all refer to the photograph Ð not the relief by Rossellino. If anything, Rossellino would appear as a term in the subject line, along with other terms like relief sculpture or Renaissance that refer to the subject of Kennedy’s photograph. Had we cataloged the mounted photo on the right before we donated it, the focus of the work record would be the relief by Rossellino. Since the museum regularly sends us material to loaded into the College’s Artstor collections, it would be entirely possible to have the same image appear in our Artstor collection as a relief by Rossellino, and in the Museum’s as a photograph by Kennedy. Answering the question “what am I cataloging?”and determining the work to be cataloged is the daily practice of a cataloger using CCO. But as we move from stewarding images for the art history department to the focus and constituents of other academic departments and other institutions, the challenge of this making this determination requires thought into the audience and use of the image.