[Rda-info-liste] Re: [RDA-L] Is every lithograph a new work?

rda-info-liste at lists.dnb.de rda-info-liste at lists.dnb.de
Die Mar 21 17:47:56 CET 2017


Sehr geehrte Frau Wiesenm├╝ller,

schade, dass Sie das Thema der Verfasserschaft von Graphiken nicht in 
Deutschland diskutieren, denn mich interessiert schon auch die Meinung 
von Kollginnen und Kollegen in dt.-sprachigen Bibliotheken, vor allen 
Dingen nat├╝rlich der Kunst- und Museumsbibliotheken.

Und da Ihre Frage in der amerikan. rda-Listeins Hintertreffen geraten 
ist, weil gerade t├╝chtig hin- und herphilosophiert wird, ob die Katze 
(Socks)derClintons geistiger Sch├Âpfer sein kann (eine Frage, die die 
Welt bewegt...), m├Âchte ich einigeHinweise an die deutsch-spr. Liste 
schicken.

In einem amerikanischen Regelwerk DCRM(G): Descriptive Cataloging of 
Rare Materials (Graphics) <https://rbms.info/dcrm/dcrmg/> ist unter 
F1.3. Main and Added Entry Choices S. 168 ff zu lesen:

Material: Lithograph with named lithographer, artist, and printer
Main entry: Lithographer
Added entry: Artist and printer

Gibt es im D-A-CH-Raum etwas vergleichbares?

Entsprechend w├╝rde ich Ihr Beispiel
> Here is an example:
> http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/purl/bsz356825272/page/1
> The small text underneath the picture reads:
> "Gemalt von Gustav Steinkopf" (painted by Gustav Steinkopf)
> "Gedr. v. G. K├╝stner" (printed by G. K├╝stner)
> "Auf Stein gez. v. E. Emminger" (drawn on stone by E. Emminger)

auch mit RDA so umsetzen:

Emminger, Eberhard,1808-1885:
Das k├Ânigliche Landhaus Rosenstein : vom W├╝rtembergischen Kunst-Verein / 
gemalt von Gustav Steinkopf ; Gedr. v. G. K├╝stner ; Auf Stein gez. v. E. 
Emminger. - [Stuttgart] : K├╝stner, [1835?]. - 1 Lithographie. ; 46,3 x 
60,3 cm. - Blattgr├Â├če 54,3 x 67,0 cm
Richtiger K├╝nstlername: "Gottlob Steinkopf"

In Marc 21-Feldern in Auswahl

100 1 $aEmminger, Eberhard$d1808-1885$eLithografIn$4ltg
245 14$aDas k├Ânigliche Landhaus Rosenstein$hObjekt$bvom W├╝rtembergischen 
Kunst-Verein$cgemalt von Gustav Steinkopf ; Gedr. v. G. K├╝stner ; Auf 
Stein gez. v. E. Emminger
260 3 $a[Stuttgart]$bK├╝stner$c[1835?]
300 $a1 Lithographie$c46,3 x 60,3 cm. - Blattgr├Â├če 54,3 x 67,0 cm
500 $aRichtiger K├╝nstlername: "Gottlob Steinkopf"
700 1 $aSteinkopf, Gottlob Friedrich$eK├╝nstlerIn$4art
700 1 $aK├╝stner, Gottfried$eDruckerIn$4prt

Die falsche Namensform "Steinkopf, Gustav" w├╝rde ich im Normsatz 
unterbringen.

Was die Palmer/Currier-Lithografie angeht m├╝sste nach den DCRM(G) 
genauso verfahren werden

Palmer, F. (Fanny), 1812-1876,
Woodcock shooting. [graphic] / From nature and on stone by F.F. Palmer. 
; Lith. of N. Currier N.Y.
Publication date: 1852
http://catalog.mwa.org/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=391323

Und im Staff view:

  * 1001_ |a Palmer, F.  |q (Fanny),  |d 1812-1876,  |e lithographer.
  * 24510 |a Woodcock shooting.  |h [graphic] /  |c From nature and on
    stone by F.F. Palmer. ; Lith. of N. Currier N.Y.
  * 70016 |a Palmer, F.  |q (Fanny),  |d 1812-1876,  |e illustrator.
  * 70016 |a Currier, Nathaniel,  |d 1813-1888,  |e lithographer.

Im der von Ihnen zitierten Angabe aus dem Toolkit ist lediglich das 
E-Jahr wegen der weitgehend entbehr- und uns├Ąglichen Copyright-Regel in 
[]-Klammer gesetzt. (Kann jemand erkl├Ąren, warum das Jahr hinter (c) 
nicht das E-Jahr sein soll?)

(Mit dem Kitsch von Herrn Moore sollte man sich besser nicht n├Ąher 
befassen ...)

Die Frage, ob die "k├╝nstlerische[n] ├ťbersetzungen eines Gem├Ąldes in ein 
druckgraphisches Bild ÔÇô nicht als blo├če Wiedergabe, sondern als eine 
zweite Erscheinungsform des Kunstwerks" 
https://books.google.de/books?id=QYTJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false 
angesehen werden k├Ânnen, sollten die Kolleginnen der  Kunst- und 
Museumsbibliotheken beantworten.

Ich m├Âchte aber fragen, ob es denn wirklich so ist, dass RDA so 
unflexibel ausgelegt werden muss, dass die Beziehungskennzeichnungen 
Lithograf  oder Stecher nur f├╝r sonstige Personen benutzt werden d├╝rfen?

Worauf bezieht sich der Absatz in RDA 19.2.1.1?:

In einigen F├Ąllen ver├Ąndert die Modifizierung eines zuvor bestehenden 
Werks die Art oder den Inhalt des Originals substantiell und f├╝hrt zu 
einem neuen Werk. Wenn das der Fall ist, wird die Person, die Familie 
oder die K├Ârperschaft, die f├╝r die Modifizierung des zuvor bestehenden 
Werks verantwortlich ist, als geistiger Sch├Âpfer des neuen Werks 
angesehen. http://access.rdatoolkit.org/rdachp19_rda19-403.html


Mit freundlichen Gr├╝├čen

Gerd Witte
Evang.-luth. Oberkirchenrat, Bibliothek
Philosophenweg 1
26121 Oldenburg

Anhang:

Das Gem├Ąlde ist von Gottlob Friedrich Steinkopf 
https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd142817481.html) 
(<http://digitalesammlungen.uni-weimar.de/viewer/image/PPN623587556/299/>
<http://digitalesammlungen.uni-weimar.de/viewer/image/PPN623587556/301/> 
(die Vorlage von 
<http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=356825272&INDEXSET=1> ist 
Schefold 8666
(Schefold 8667 Variante: mit berichtigtem K├╝nstlernamen ┬╗Gottlob Steinkopf┬ź)

Gem├Ąlde von Steinkopf:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Gottlob_Friedrich_Steinkopf,_010.jpg

Die Lithografie hier:
http://pictures.abebooks.com/KOENITZ/16811876058.jpg
http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/filegroups/steikoni_356825272/max/00000001.jpg

Am 18.03.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Heidrun Wiesenm├╝ller:
>
> I remember that we discussed the position of "lithographer" in 
> appendix I a little while ago, but now I have a different question (or 
> rather, questions) with respect to lithographers.
>
> The definition in the appendix at I.4.1 is:
> "lithographer: An agent involved in manufacturing a manifestation by 
> preparing a stone or plate for lithographic printing.
> A lithographer includes a graphic artist creating a design directly on 
> the surface from which printing will be done."
>
> In the second case mentioned, I think the lithographer must needs also 
> be the creator of the work (assuming that the litographer in this case 
> draws his or her own design). But what about cases when the 
> lithographer uses a painting done by somebody else and transfers this 
> on the stone?
>
> Here is an example:
> http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/purl/bsz356825272/page/1
>
> The small text underneath the picture reads:
> "Gemalt von Gustav Steinkopf" (painted by Gustav Steinkopf)
> "Gedr. v. G. K├╝stner" (printed by G. K├╝stner)
> "Auf Stein gez. v. E. Emminger" (drawn on stone by E. Emminger)
>
> Until very recently, I would have thought that Steinkopf as the 
> original painter is also the creator of the lithograph, and that 
> Emminger as the lithographer has a relationship to the manifestation 
> only (because that's where the relationship designator "lithographer" 
> is listed). But now I'm no longer sure.
>
> I don't know a lot about lithography, but obviously a lithograph is 
> not simply a copy of the original. Even if the contours are replicated 
> exactly (e.g. by the help of a projection of the original), the toning 
> is certainly achieved differently. So, I think that the version on the 
> stone must at least be a new expression of the original work. But 
> then, shouldn't the lithographer have a relationship on expression 
> level instead of manifestation level?
>
> I'm also confused by this example given at 21.6.1.3:
>
> Currier, Nathaniel, 1813ÔÇô1888
> Authorized access point representing the lithographer for: Woodcock 
> shooting / from nature and on stone by F.F. Palmer ; lith. of N. 
> Currier N.Y. ÔÇö New York : Currier & Ives, [1852]. A lithograph
>
> What exactly was the function of Currier here? He didnt't do the 
> drawing on stone, because that was done by Palmer (who is not listed 
> as a lithographer, although this might have been expected according to 
> the definition). So did Currier merely have technical 
> responsibilities, like applying the necessary solution after the image 
> was drawn? Or does it mean that he produced the copies from the 
> lithographic stone (but then, wouldn't he be a printer)?
>
> There is also a lithography example for an authorized access point at 
> 6.27.1.8 (Worksof Uncertain or Unknown Origin):
>
> Summer night
> Resource described: Summer night. An anonymous lithograph of a 
> painting by Albert Moore
>
> This implies that the lithograph is not an expression of the original 
> painting (because Albert Moore is not a part of the access point), but 
> rather a new work, whose creator we do not know. But wouldn't that 
> mean that *every* lithograph based on an existing painting is 
> automatically a new work, and the person who's drawn the image on 
> stone (whom I would have called a lithographer) is a creator?
>
> A lithograph might be a new work according to RDA 6.27.1.5: "If an 
> adaptation or revision of an existing work substantially changes the 
> nature and content of that work, treat the adaptation or revision as a 
> new work."
>
> There is indeed an example from the arts in this instruction:
>
> Sartain, John, 1808ÔÇô1897. ArtistÔÇÖs dream
> An engraving by Sartain based on an original painting by George H. 
> Comegys
>
> So do both engravings and lithographs "substantially change the nature 
> and content" of the original work? But if this is the case, then why 
> are engravers and lithographers listed at I.4, and not at I.2.1, 
> together with other creators?
>
> Sorry for asking so many questions. But I've got the weird feeling of 
> walking in circles. Either I simply don't get it (maybe because of my 
> inedaquate knowledge of the techniques involved), or there is 
> something of a muddle here...
>
> Any insights are highly appreciated!
>
> Heidrun
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>
> You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L discussion list.
> You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your subscription athttp://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l.
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email tosympa at lists.ala.org  with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>
>
>
-------------- nńchster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: http://lists.dnb.de/pipermail/rda-info-liste/attachments/20170321/73af0d72/attachment-0001.html