On 29/01/2014 16.09, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
James Weinheimer said:
This is the primary problem I have with making an art exhibition into a corporate name. The idea of a corporate body is that it can be an author. I don’t see how an art exhibition can author something, or bring out a publication in its name. There can be the “Executive committee” that creates or oversees an art exhibition that may issue works, but otherwise, the exhibition itself seems to me to be an event.
I see what you mean, but is this really so very different from a conference?
Of course, basically it’s a matter of definition. But still, I would prefer RDA to be more consistent: Either exhibitions are corporate bodies or they aren’t. It seems odd that some of them are (the recurring ones) and the others aren’t.
I think it is very different, because a conference consists of a group of people that collectively creates a work, and if that group has a name, the name can be associated with the work. The art exhibition is not a group of people, but a group of works. It may bring people together but it still remains a group of works. Therefore, it can author nothing but on the contrary, it is the creation.
I also have problems with some exhibitions being a corporate body, but I am sure that those ongoing exhibitions such as the Biennale in Venice have mighty organizations behind them and are more like conferences. Still, I can live with a bit of inconsistency in my life here and there.
But like Bernhard, I wish we could reconsider these little subtleties that we have always wrestled with in the light of: who is it good for? While some of this may serve as an interesting philosophical discussion for a college class, or for someone wanting a safe diversion during some idle time, something on the order of, “Can Achilles really catch the tortoise or not?”, it would be good to know that we are spending our time discussing matters of some importance.
We should be making these decisions on the basis of facts based on some kind of knowledge of what the public and the librarians need and want. Otherwise, we seem to be completely self-referential and lost in useless conjecture that may have no relevance to anything practical.
Unfortunately, it seems as if libraries are doing absolutely zero research into this. The Googles spend outrageous amounts on this type of research, and keep it very secret. I think that says something.