<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 12pt Times New Roman; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px">
<DIV>This has cropped up as a question for us and we have altered our
practice. I used to think of them as published as well and treated them
like a book, with a complete 260 field. Since then, however, after much
discussio with out curator, we now treat them as unpublished artworks, with a
date in the subfield c of the 260 but no publuication information.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Where I still have troubled conceptually, however, is with limited
editions. Are a books in an edition of five artists books that are signed
and lacking an imprint to be treated as published or not? Does duplication
make something "published." And what about situations where you know there
is only one but the artist has included a printed imprint? Does that make
it published?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When the draft AACR3 was being reviewed (and criticized) I mentioned these
questions and asked for a better defition of "published" materials, but I don't
think my question was heard.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Arvid Nelsen</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>R. Arvid Nelsen<BR>Coord. of Technical Services/Original
Cataloger/Classical Studies Librarian<BR>University of California, San
Diego<BR>Mandeville Special Collections Library<BR>9500 Gilman Drive,
0175S<BR>La Jolla, CA 92093-0175<BR>Phone: 858-534-6766<BR>Fax:
858-534-5950</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>>>> robert_maxwell@byu.edu 03/06/07 10:23AM
>>><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=140272218-06032007>Forwarding this for Ryan--I'm not sure why it didn't go
through the first time.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Robert L. Maxwell<BR></FONT></P><BR>-------- Original Message
--------
<TABLE class=moz-email-headers-table cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TH vAlign=baseline noWrap align=right>Subject: </TH>
<TD>Are unique artists' books "published"?</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TH vAlign=baseline noWrap align=right>Date: </TH>
<TD>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:34:39 -0800</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TH vAlign=baseline noWrap align=right>From: </TH>
<TD>Ryan Hildebrand <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:hildebrj@uci.edu"><hildebrj@uci.edu></A></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TH vAlign=baseline noWrap align=right>To: </TH>
<TD>DCRM Revision Group List <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu"><dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR>
<P class=MsoNormal>I have a few philosophical questions for those of you who
catalog unique (1 of 1) artists' books. Do you treat them as published works? In
particular, how do you formulate field 260, and why do you do it this
way?<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P> <BR></O:P></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>In the strange territory of artists' books what constitutes
publication?<O:P> <BR></O:P></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>(FYI, I am inclined to regard them as published, but just
barely.)<BR></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>-----<BR>Ryan Hildebrand, Special Collections and Archives
Cataloger <BR>UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, University of California, Irvine,
CA 92623-9557 <BR>Telephone: (949) 824-2263 | Fax: (949) 824-2472
</P></BODY></HTML>