[DCRM-L] illustration technique / reproduction technique

Tue Jan 10 09:17:59 MST 2017

Thanks Erin- I suspected that might be an incorrect use of the (process)
terms but didn't have the rule to confirm.

Even if that option isn't available, I'm mostly just pleased to have
confirmation that it's not a crazy idea to at times apply two genre terms
to the same illustration. Situations like in your *Mr. Sponge's Sporting
Tour* example were what were making me wring my hands the most.

Best,
Matt

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:

> Fear not, Richard. When I wrote "The safe bet would be to use the broader
> term 'Relief prints' and move on" I meant it literally: it's not incorrect,
> and it's speedy. It's not necessarily preferable.
>
>
>
> Taking up Matt's example, I like the idea of being able to use the AAT
> terms wood engraving (process)
> <http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=wood+engraving&logic=AND&note=&subjectid=300053303>
>  and wood engravings (prints)
> <http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=wood+engraving&logic=AND&note=&english=N&prev_page=1&subjectid=300041402> to
> distinguish illustration technique from printing technique, but I'm not
> sure it can work that way. "Wood engraving (process)" is from the
> "Activities" facet, which is topical by implication: "wood engraving
> (process)" could be a 650 for a book about wood engraving, or for a picture
> of a wood engraver at work, but not a 655.
>
>
>
> Appendix C of *The Guide to Indexing and Cataloging with the Art &
> Architecture Thesaurus* (1994) explicitly says the 655 can only contain
> terms from the Information Forms, Object Genres, and Visual Works facets.
> *But* at some point down the road, AAT dropped the Chart of MARC/AAT
> fields from the Guide. (At least, I can't find it in any of the online
> guides; it's a paper copy from 1994 that I have in front of me).
>
>
>
> This discussion is eerily well-timed….. on Friday, the Folger's Cataloging
> and Metadata department made the official decision to begin preferring AAT
> terms over RBMS terms in the 655.  (You heard it here first, folks…. We
> haven't yet globally changed any terms, and we haven't yet written up new
> help pages for catalog users).
>
>
>
> EB.
>
>
>
> ________
>
>
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |
>  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC,
> 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323
> <%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328  |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Matthew Ducmanas
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 5:11 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] illustration technique / reproduction technique
>
>
>
> Thank you for your response as well, Richard.
>
>
>
> You make an interesting point about the translation process that can occur
> at various stages of the illustration's production. If anyone is interested
> in a good read touching a bit on that, I recently enjoyed Beegan's *The
> mass image : a cultural history of photomechanical reproduction in
> Victorian London <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/181072643>* which examines
> the period of transition from wood engraving to photomechanical methods as
> the most popular reproduction method. It was fascinating to read about the
> interplay between the two production methods, as well as the hybrid nature
> of some early process prints.
>
>
>
>
>
> I wonder if any institutions make use of the AAT terms identifying process
> as opposed to print to call out distinctions like these. The thesaurus has
> both wood engraving (process)
> <http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=wood+engraving&logic=AND&note=&subjectid=300053303>
>  and wood engravings (prints)
> <http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=wood+engraving&logic=AND&note=&english=N&prev_page=1&subjectid=300041402> as
> terms. To take a more extreme example, would it makes sense to apply the
> terms *offset lithographs *and *wood engraving (process)* to a modern
> reproduction of a wood engraving produced by offset lithography? This would
> correctly identify the physical thing in front of us while providing a form
> of access to the image's original existence. Though I'm not sure if that is
> entirely satisfactory or is making correct use of the process terms.
> Perhaps visual materials catalogers have considered something similar.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hmmm... I question Erin with some trepidation, but: if it make sense to
> flag both the illustration technique and the printing technology, would it
> not make sense, in cases of doubt as to the latter but not the former, to
> flag the technique? The qualities of line and such that are characteristic
> of the technique are smudged, shall we say, by mixing the technique and the
> technology into a generalization.
>
>
>
> This is complicated by the fact that the *illustrator's* technique may
> itself be a prior layer in the making of a wood-engraved illustration,
> though the resulting illustration is not a specimen of that technique.
> Still "Relief print" somehow fails to capture what one knows about basic
> qualities of the illustration. What one *does* know about a
> stereo/electro of a wood-engraved illustration is that the appearance of
> the specimen has to do with its origination as a block of wood.
>
>
>
> A fine point: I gather that a stereotype may be distinguishable
> side-by-side from an electrotype of the same wood engraving: the softer
> stereo wears relatively quickly, if I recall--I noted this in something I
> cataloged some while ago, but as is usual in such cases I can't manage to
> find it, now that it's relevant to a discussion. (It has to do with the
> printing of early editions of Jacob Abbott's "Rollo philosophy ..." books,
> with stereotyped text and directly printed blocks--because, as I think it
> was Abbott himself who remarked in his account of the Harper Printing
> Establishment, stereotyping couldn't satisfactorily reproduce fine lines,
> which became possible with electrotyping.)
>
>
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <(401)%20863-1187>
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
>
> Great question. One of the points I like to make when teaching "The
> History of Printed Book Illustration in the West" at Rare Book school is
> that, from the 19th century onward, "illustration technique" and "printing
> technique" don't always match.
>
>
>
> My go-to example for class discussion is an 1860s edition of *Mr.
> Sponge's Sporting Tour*. The list of illustrations is headed "Engravings
> on steel" even though they're  actually transfer lithographs of steel
> engravings (which were printed from steel plates in the first edition,
> 1853). So… what are they, engravings or lithographs? The point of the
> discussion is to explore the divide between "illustration technique" as an
> aesthetic choice and "printing technique" as a practical matter of book
> production. People in class generally come around to agreeing that the
> *illustration* technique is steel engraving, and the *printing* technique
> is transfer lithography, so both terms are appropriate.
>
>
>
> If it's institutional policy to provide access to specific types of print,
> and you know for-sure what both are, then I'd provide both terms in the
> 655, and an explanatory note, e.g. "Illustrated with lithographically
> reproduced etchings."
>
>
>
> However…. as you say, it can be impossible to tell the difference between
> a wood engraving and a stereotype of a wood engraving. The safe bet would
> be to use the broader term "Relief prints" and move on. Maybe someone down
> the line will find the answer in the publisher's archives. That also lets
> *you* know that you didn't just forget to add the 655.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Erin.
>
>
>
> ________
>
>
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |
>  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC,
> 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323
> <%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328  |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Matthew Ducmanas
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:47 PM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] illustration technique / reproduction technique
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I recently posed a question regarding illustrations to some former Rare
> Book School colleagues as well as the always helpful Deborah J. Leslie. She
> suggested I might ask it here as well.
>
>
>
> The question pertains largely to those of you who regularly trace
> illustration types in your records. Is there a common practice when tracing
> reproductions of illustrations that differ in technique?
>
>
>
> For example, if you have an item containing wood engravings that have been
> either stereotyped or reproduced in some photoengraved fashion, do you
> still use a 655 for wood engravings? Or do you leave the tracing off, or
> use something like 655 Line blocks?
>
>
>
> I can see utility in tracing an illustration made from a stereotyped wood
> engraving block as "Wood engravings" since the stereotype would make such a
> close reproduction (not to even mention the difficulty of telling it apart
> from one printed from the original block).
>
>
>
> Though I imagine there has to be limits to this approach otherwise we'd
> end up in the strange situation of, for example, tracing a relief halftone
> or offset lithograph reproduction as the original illustrative technique.
> I've seen books with relief halftone reproductions of etchings. Seems wrong
> to trace that as an etching.
>
>
>
> Just curious if any of you have mulled over this at all or know of a
> common practice.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Matthew Ducmanas*
>
> *Special Collections Cataloging Librarian*
>
> *Temple University Libraries*
>
> *Philadelphia, Pa.*
>
> *matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu <matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu>*
>
> *215-204-20157*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Matthew Ducmanas*
>
> *Special Collections Cataloging Librarian*
>
> *Temple University Libraries*
>
> *Philadelphia, Pa.*
>
> *matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu <matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu>*
>
> *215-204-20157*
>

-- 
*Matthew Ducmanas*
*Special Collections Cataloging Librarian*
*Temple University Libraries*
*Philadelphia, Pa.*
*matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu <matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu>*
*215-204-20157*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20170110/18ac4dfd/attachment-0001.html>