[DCRB-L] Colored illustrations

[Erin Blake]

Jane Gillis's example is one of the reasons I like the distinction made
in the 007 when cataloguing visual materials: one [not black] colour is
distinguished both from multi-colour and from black-and-white.  This
makes it possible to identify works that will be intelligible in
microfilm or standard b&w photos from those that would require the extra
expense of colour photography (e.g. for off-site scholars ordering study
copies, or for authors on a strict budget looking for images to
reproduce in their books).  

That being said, my concern about the rule refers to the word "coloured"
in the guideline rather than the end result in the catalogue record: is
it possible the rule could use the broader term "colour" rather than
"coloured" when definining terms?  The action implied by the "ed" in
"coloured" is conventionally used by art historians and visual materials
cataloguers to distinguish works that were created in colour from those
that have been coloured at some later point.  [e.g. Graphic Materials
3C4.1 "Color refers to material in which color is an inherent part of
the original creation. Hand-colored refers to materials to which color
is applied in a later stage, by hand, stencil, or other method. When in
doubt as to whether a piece is hand-colored, use color."]

It should be remembered, though, that the definition in Graphic
Materials does not mean that "hand-coloured" is copy-specific and
"colour" is not.  A colour illustration printed from multiple
single-colour plates, and a colour illustration printed in "one go" from
a plate dabbed with multiple colours are both "colour". The former tend
to be uniform; the latter allow for more individual variation.  Oh well.

  Erin Blake.

-------------------------------------
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.
Curator of Art
Folger Shakespeare Library
201 E. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003-1094
office tel. (202) 675-0323
fax (202) 675-0328
e-mail: eblake at folger.edu
www.folger.edu