Arts and Library stuff revisited
I'm currently creating a metadata keyword scheme for my photo library. It is re-awakening all sorts of memories from my library school/art library days. For reasons such as this...
While googling to find examples of keyword schemes (because I don't want to have to redo mine in the future when I find "a better way") I was eventually directed to the Library of Congress's Thesaurus for Graphic Materials: Subject Terms page. It is definitely informative although waaaaaay more comprehensive than I need to be for my little photo library. But it's still fun to read, and i honestly dont think I've even been on the LOC website since I graduated. However, I stumbled upon this, and I have to say that it is SOOOO far off from what abstract art is, that I'm a little annoyed. (This isn't meant to be their definitive definition, its just mentioned in part of the write up that talks about how to decide what is in an image): "The most obvious exceptions are abstract works of art which depict different things in the eyes of different viewers." First off, doesn't all art? Secondly, it's wrong.
Not surprisingly the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus has a much better definition: "In the strictest sense, the term refers to 20th-century Western painting, sculpture, or graphic art that does not include forms that represent objects from the visible world. The term is sometimes applied to art in which natural forms are only simplified or changed in their representation, but not eliminated entirely."
Also the Getty AAT website has not changed one bit since I was in the Art library world. I love their hierarchy feature for terms, so I'm going to go back to playing with that. Nerdiness done for now.
While googling to find examples of keyword schemes (because I don't want to have to redo mine in the future when I find "a better way") I was eventually directed to the Library of Congress's Thesaurus for Graphic Materials: Subject Terms page. It is definitely informative although waaaaaay more comprehensive than I need to be for my little photo library. But it's still fun to read, and i honestly dont think I've even been on the LOC website since I graduated. However, I stumbled upon this, and I have to say that it is SOOOO far off from what abstract art is, that I'm a little annoyed. (This isn't meant to be their definitive definition, its just mentioned in part of the write up that talks about how to decide what is in an image): "The most obvious exceptions are abstract works of art which depict different things in the eyes of different viewers." First off, doesn't all art? Secondly, it's wrong.
Not surprisingly the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus has a much better definition: "In the strictest sense, the term refers to 20th-century Western painting, sculpture, or graphic art that does not include forms that represent objects from the visible world. The term is sometimes applied to art in which natural forms are only simplified or changed in their representation, but not eliminated entirely."
Also the Getty AAT website has not changed one bit since I was in the Art library world. I love their hierarchy feature for terms, so I'm going to go back to playing with that. Nerdiness done for now.
Comments