exhibition catalogue


I wonder if is there a possibility to add a new item type: "exhibition catalogue".
This is very useful for Visual Studies citations
With that, it should also include a "curator" field as well.

Just a suggestion.

Thanks a lot
  • how would you cite that?
  • edited June 19, 2010
    Spaces, (exhibition catalogue) New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1969. Curator: Jennifer Licht.

    With the title Spaces in italics.

    The curator should be at the end and not at the beginning like an author.
  • I'm not sure about style guidelines but I have noticed exhibition catalogs can be an awkward to fit with the book type. Possibly what's needed is a "curator" person role.

    There's a lot of variation but one problem I've encountered is multiple authors/essays, same as an anthology, but no editor identified. Often there's a "chief curator" or something similar, but not always, and sometimes the editor is identified and is a different person from the curator. What's awkward is that when conceived of as an exhibit, not a book, the curator's role is generally more important and analogous to an "editor".

    Which reminds me of this discussion of the French distinction between directeur de publication and éditeur.
  • yeah - I thought the same as alex - it seems like additional creator categories would be great.
  • Pintu: Can you provide a link to a style guide that covers exhibition catalogs?

    If the curator needs to be at the end, won't CSL have to be aware of this type as distinct from Book?
  • If the curator needs to be at the end, won't CSL have to be aware of this type as distinct from Book?
    not necessarily could work just fine, considering that books never have curators.
  • >> "What's awkward is that when conceived of as an exhibit, not a book, the curator's role is generally more important and analogous to an "editor" "

    I don't agree : usually the curator is also responsible for the catalogue. Some times there could be a different editor but in that case the editor will fit in the existing zotero roles (editor) and the curator could be manually mentioned.

    At the same time, it is not proper to just list a curator under the existing role of author or editor. The reason for citing a catalogue is not just the catalogue but especially the exhibition, and that's why it is important to remember the person who conceived the exhibit (curator).

    The exemple I've provide is for the final Bibliography. Usually when you cite a catalogue in your text you mention a specific essay so you mention the author ... "article" in: Spaces etc. (so that give relevance to the authors of texts)

    I don't know some style guide for this. what I propose is what i find more often used but I have to say that everyone changes a bit the positions and the abbreviation of the terms... if you have a better idea just go ahead
  • I checked the Chicago Manual (15th). They have two explicit references to exhibition catalogs, pretty brief ones. 8.208: titles of catalogs are italicized, references to the exhibition itself are not. And the important, helpful one, 17.240: "Exhibition catalogs are often published as a book and are treated as such." Gee, thanks a lot.

    But the one example they provide is interesting, for this book:
    Mary Cassatt: Modern Woman. Edited by Judith A. Barter. Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, in association with Harry N. Abrams, 1998. Published in conjunction with the exhibition "Mary Cassatt: Modern Woman" shown at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the National Gallery in Washington, DC, and the Art Institute of Chicago.
    "or, if space is tight" leaving out the details as follows: "...with Harry N. Abrams, 1998. An exhibition catalog."

    They list the apparent curator ("organized by" - safe to call that a synonym) as editor. BUT, they also include info on the exhibition ("published in conjunction...") that zotero doesn't capture (from my home catalog at least).

    However, relevant to the question of the "curator" role, I think you'd also want to consider what they say about "supplementary information" (17.43 ff.) - other things like "translated by" that appear on the title page. What strikes me as an analogous case is 17.45 "Editor versus author": "Occasionally, when an editor or translator is more important to a discussion than the original author, a book may be listed under the editor's name," with the example of Pound's essays edited by Eliot.

    Now it's all clear. (ha ha that was a joke.) And that's only one styleguide.

    Just to make things more fun, I'm pretty sure there are disciplinary norms here. In architectural history I only cite them occasionally and have been able to just muddle through, but art historians use them all the time. I'll see if I can track down a styleguide from an art history journal. I'd like to figure out a consistent approach because it does come up for me now and then.
  • your exemple is very good and it is true that the "Published in conjunction with the exhibition" it is another good solution and often used as well (a bit long tough)

    (altough you are left with the doubt about who is the curator of the exhibit, and as we mentioned before, sometimes editor and curator can be different. this can be solved by adding at the end "curator: Judith A. Barter" )

    but i think here the priority it is here to create an item type in order to keep the exhibition catalogues (the word "catalogs" it is really rare and shoud be discarted) in order and separated from the rest.

    And probably then find the easiest way to associate a formulation, that then everyone can adpat in their own way.

    Usually in bibliographies you group all exhibition catalogues and list them under the name of the exhibit. So you treat them differently to the other entries.

    If you look for some art journal, I may suggest October (MIT press)
  • Hi
    an item type exhibition catalogue would also be extremely useful for me. If there is no authors name - and the curator often is NOT the catalogue editor - according to Harvard reference system the institution is named as author, which is quite logical in a way, as the reference in the text would then be (MoMa 2010) or something like that.
  • FWIW, I'm really, REALLY leery of adding such a specific type. Can people not imagine something broader that would still work? Or instead, imagine a new field to add to other, existing, types?
  • edited December 20, 2010
    Bruce doesn't like the one for podcasts, either (and it doesn't "really" exist - Zotero just treats it like an audio recording for citation purposes).
    There are a number of superfluous item types in Zotero already - that's not a good reason to add more.
    I think Bruce's suggestions are really the way to go - let's either think of a way to adjust the book (or a different) item type to be able to deal with exhibition catalogues, or find a broader label for a new category that can accommodate more than just catalogues.

    Edit: to clarify: Bruce=bdarcus
  • Raised again here: http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/17338

    Do we ever run into similar requirements for published proceedings of a conference, when cited as a volume/book? There you'd also have an event date and a name that differ from the book title and publication location. The filler text would be different, of course, but there seems to be at least superficial similarity.
  • Monash University (http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/tutorials/citing/turabian-footnote.html) gives the requirements for citing an Art exhibition catalogue and for biobliograpic entry below:

    Cite an art exhibition catalogue as you would a book. In your bibliography, include the name and location (s) of the exhibition following the publication data.
    Example: as Footnote:
    1. Caroline Mathieu, Monique Nonne and Ted Gott, The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musee D'Orsay (Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria, 2004)

    In Bibliography:
    Mathieu, Caroline, Monique Nonne, and Ted Gott. The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musee D'Orsay. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria, 2004. Published in conjunction with the exhibition "The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musee D'Orsay" shown at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, Victoria 17 June to 26 September 2004.
  • Apologies. I should have said this is for the Turabian style.
  • OK, so this is essentially a book that has
    Published in conjunction with the exhibition "The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musee D'Orsay" shown at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, Victoria 17 June to 26 September 2004.
    appended in the bibliography. hmmmm.
  • At the moment I just put the exhibition information into "Extra", then copy and paste it to the end of the bibliographic entry. It would be nice to be able to do it automatically.
  • edited April 2, 2011
    It would be nice to be able to do it automatically.
    Add in your style (.csl): <text variable="note"/> It will display the content of the "extra" field.

    [ http://www.zotero.org/support/csl_simple_edits
    To edit Zotero 2.1.x styles: http://citationstyles.org/citation-style-language/editing-styles/ ]
  • This last comment is very useful. Thanks.

    However, most specialized guides to art history documentation place the abbreviation "exh. cat." right after the title, separated from the former with a comma and in roman type (not ital as the title), like this (_ = ital):

    Douglas, Fred, and Christopher Varley. _Eleven Early British Columbian Photographers, 1890-1940_, exh. cat. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery, 1976.

    Can this be handled by some fix to the "extra" field?

    Also, another prominent feature of exhibition catalogues is that they are copublished by many institutions in the same territory (as opposed to non-overlapping NA / Europe copublication that is common with books). The cities and copublishers should all be listed, separated by semi-colons. Here is an extreme case with four curators and four equal publishing institutions in three different cities (note also two different languages):

    Coessens, Piet, Gabrielle Claes, Régis Durand, and André Iten. _Michael Snow: Panoramique: Oeuvres Photographiques & Films / Photographic Works and Films, 1962-1999_, exh. cat. Bruxelles: Société des Expositions du Palais des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles / Cinémathèque royale de Belgique; Paris: Centre national de la photographie; Saint-Gervais Genève: Centre pour l’image contemporaine, 1999.

    What is needed here is to be able to add more publisher fields, as one can do with authors/editors. You can bung them and the cities all into the one publisher field provided but this is a mess and not not allow for proper searching on that field.

    Aurele (an art historian)
  • what citation style - journal, association or the like - is this and is there a style guide online?
  • Regarding "exh. cat." after title:

    College Art Association guidelines are no longer online, but here is a quote from the notes of an article in the current, March 2011, issue of their journal, Art Bulletin, about the most established art history journal in the world:

    111 1836. SZ 60 SMB. KK, in Anita Belotibek-Hammer et al., eds.. Brücke
    und Berlin: 100 /ahre F^xftressionismus, exh. cat. (Berlin; Nicolai Verlag.
    2005), 351. cat. no. 49.

    This system is given in just about every writing guide for art history, see for instance:

    Barnet, Sylvan. A Short Guide to Writing About Art. 10th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2011.

    Chapter 13 – note, 10th edition! It even says to do it like this when following Chicago.

    For listing copublishers and separating them with semicolons: see Chicago, 16th, 14.147.

    Otherwise one of civilization's great achivements, Chicago is distresslingly pathetic with respect to the complexities of catalogues and art works generally.

  • that's helpful, thanks.
    We can probably get the "exh. cat" with the genre variable (although I'm not loving that, because that way we can't take advantage of locales nor have a long and short form).
    What exactly is cat. no. 49 here?
    I agree with Bruce - it would be really good if we could either find a more general type for this or be able to do it as a book, maybe with the help of one or two extra fields.
    The multiple publisher thing would appear to be separate from this - I've seen this also for regular books (e.g. published by an international organization and an academic press).
  • Ah yes, "cat. no. 49" would mean that the information being cited it located in the entry for item work number 49 in the catalogue listing. While catalogues have become very elaborate items with lots of text(s) and colour plates, etc., at heart the crucial part of it is the detailed listing of works at the back, the entries of which can be quite detailed. As these pages are quite dense, citing the page number is often not sufficient: one also needs to cite the specific catalogue entry.

    Why is these only one field each for city and publisher?

  • "Why is these only one field each for city and publisher?"
    no particular reason - it's the norm and so that was implemented - but I think splitting both up (i.e. allowing many publisher and many places) would make a lot of sense, but it's not easy - we would have to somehow find a way to match them(i.e. the right place with the right publisher), without making the GUI too messy.
  • It would be a big help.

    Also, would it be possible to have say check boxes beside the Extra field and also the # of pages field so that they can be included for selected records?

    For instance, I'm working with a research group compiling a bibliography of resources in photographic history and, for certain kinds of items, at the end of the entries we would like to include codes for language, number of pages, number of illustrations, whether there is a bibliography, and whether there is an index.

  • Sorry to resuscitate an old thread here - I have read the above but still haven't found my answer.

    I use MHRA, and the style guide indicates that exhibition catalogues should be treated like books (as in Chicago and probably others).
    My personal reason to want to expand this type of reference is that sometimes the institution teams up with a commercial publisher to produce the catalogue (for practical / financial reasons), and I don't want to have to pick just one of the two for consistency.

    Whilst it would make sense to cite the exhibition venues separately from the catalogue for touring exhibitions, for someone who needs to refer to a lot of exh. catalogues it would be extremely useful to have extra fields (particularly venues, exh. dates, curators), and to be able to signal in shorter references that a given publication is tied to an exhibition (i.e., no matter what the style guide says, I will always add 'exh. cat.' in my references before the publisher).

    Having said this, I will try and customise my style...
  • I'm resuscitating the thread again. Until Zotero fixes this, you can put into the "Edition" field "Exhibition catalogue, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts" (for instance) and that will then come up nicely before the publisher when you cite it.
  • In order to get the designation "exhibition catalog" or the more verbose info suggested by Chicago style at the end of the citation, I enter them in the Extra field combined and use the Chicago (note, annotated bibliography) style, which can be found in the Zotero style repository.

    Using Chicago author-date, put the info in the URL field to have it appear at the end. (Of course, not helpful if you also have a URL.)

    I know this thread is old, but for my $.02 as an art historian, I don't see the "curator" vs. "editor" issue as especially urgent, but would appreciate some other way of handling hosting institutions, as 57bears and aurelep mention. Often these seem to get classed as "Authors," (e.g. when importing from worldcat). For now the Extra field is good for these... extras.
Sign In or Register to comment.