We have "audio recording" and "film" as types of records, but I can't find "photo", nor a clear-cut category that could serve as an alternative ("artwork" is much too broad). Could this be added?
The fields work, but the type itself is another of these problematic types in Zotero.
The problem is actually not that it's only "broad" (as mark characterizes it), but that it's both too broad AND too narrow.
It is broad WRT to the expression type (could be an image, or an object, or even music in theory), while being narrow WRT to the work type or genre (art).
What if, for example, I have a diagram, or a medical autopsy photo, or historical drawing of some building that is purely technical in nature. These aren't "artworks".
For mark, I suggest you use "artwork" ATM. Just want to note this as another one of those problem types.
I added this to the ticket for possible new item types.
Perhaps "artwork" should be renamed as "picture" then; but then how would one cite an artwork that's an object? Another item type? A sculpture is not a "document" I think so "document" wouldn't work. We had discussed this before in another thread:
Erazlogo: actually, the fields under "Artwork" do suffice at this point, so that's what I had used. It's just that it doesn't feel right at all to have ethnographic photos from the Basel Mission Archives under the heading "Artwork". Also, I can think of types of metadata one might want keep for photos that don't fit into the fields under Artwork. 'Process' for example, as in "b/w negative, gelatin dry plate". Also, for archival photos an exact date is often lacking, so that you would have fields like "early date" and "late date" demarcating the period in which the photo must have been taken [actually this holds for a lot of archival materials, not just photos].
And since we have "video recording" and "audio recording" as types, I felt it would make sense to have the 'still equivalent' of such recordings, i.e. "photo". Thing is, very many photos are not intended as works of art, but just to capture information much like audio and video recordings do.
[edit] And actually, I don't think Artwork should be renamed to Photo; just as you mention, it is a useful type for all sorts of work of art. So I'd be in favour of adding Photo and keeping Artwork.
You can actually include date ranges in the date field (1921-1922, 1920s, ca. 1930, etc.). These may not appear correctly in citations yet, but this will be fixed soon.
I usually put "b/w negative, gelatin dry plate" etc. into "medium" field--can you explain why this info wouldn't fit in "medium"?
Ah, from date ranges not appearing correctly in citations I had inferred that I better not put them in the date field. Good to know.
I think you're right that "b/w negative, gelatin dry plate" could in principle be put into the "medium" field.
Anyway, the point remains that it would make sense, I think, to have a non-artwork equivalent of video and audio recordings, namely "Photo". But until that's added (if it is), I'll just keep using the Artwork type.
Well, I added this thread to the relevant ticket for consideration--new item types cannot be added till Firefox 3 comes out, so it may take a few months.
The problem with "art work" is that it does not have a "pages"-field. So if I want to have a certain National Geographic picture in my Zotero database--i.e. a reference to this picture--I _can_ enter it as an art work, but unfortunately it is not possible to also mention "page 15" in the reference.
jenske: It would seem to me that, for the time being at least, you could just cite this as a article in national geographic and not the photo. Are there any fields you need to make a citation that you are missing in the article item?
It may be possible to make changes to the artwork type in Zotero 2.1, but the existing discussions don't provide clear indication of what should change, what fields are needed.
How about adding "subject" as a creator role for artwork? I'm thinking of portraits, mainly photographs, where the person depicted may be the only meaningful information available.
"Place" would also be a good addition. For photographs, it will often be the place where the photo was taken or published; photo calling cards (for those of us who traffic in the late 19th century...), if they are covered by this type, have a specific location of publication. Place could be confusing for artwork that is displayed-- the places of creation and exhibition are likely to differ.
And that's pretty much where one previous discussion ended up. I don't know where to go on this, but it's a weak/messy part of the model, and we should try to clean it up now.
well - I think using "image" for a sculptures etc. is preferable to using artwork for an archival photograph used by a historian.
I'd say the choice is between keeping artwork and adding another "image" or "photo" category, or by renaming artwork to "image".
I'll spend 20mins this pm looking at some citations to see what makes sense. I actually have a historian working with photos next door, so that part is easy. I'll guess I'll see what art historians do - I've not seen many of them around here, unfortunately.
@Rintze: I thought about the place split-- I suppose the creation and exhibition places are sufficiently parallel to event and publisher to make that work.
OK, so neither Art Historians nor Historians tend to cite paintings or photos as part of bibliographic notes. Citation type data is provided only for images that are actually printed, and then either under the images or (as sometimes in books) in the "List of Plates" in the beginning of the book. There does not seem to be any particular information required by Historians that wouldn't currently be possible (i.e. creator, title, date taken, location in archive).
In Art History, citations tend to be under the printed images (other images are just referred to in text without citation information). They look like this (from Art History the flagship journal of the professional association in the US)
Hans Holbein the Younger, Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan, 1538. Oil on oak, 179.1 x 82.6 cm. London: National Gallery. Presented by the National Art Collections Fund, with the aid of an anonymous donation, 1909. Photo: National Gallery of London.
Mostly this is covered (we have medium and size already). The "Presented by..." part is rare and could just be part of the Location in Archive. The only thing that is consistently provided and doesn't seem to fit is the "Photo:" line - this is also frequently a copyright line, so it could go into the "rights" field - but that's never mapped, is it?
CSL doesn't have a "rights" variable, which explains why it isn't mapped. As for the "Photo:" bit, maybe we could abuse "publisher"? The photo is a representation of the painting, so you're actually describing a hierarchical relation.
I agree that the "Photo:" part could be the "publisher" field.
How about my proposal of adding the new creator role "Subject"? For portraiture (inc. photography), the depicted person is central information that would be good to include in a standard way. While the subject does not produce the work (create it), I think that this is similar to Reviewed Author or Recipient, creator roles that do not entail creating the work at hand.
but what would be the situation where the subject isn't in the title of the photo/painting? Or do you think the problem of that is that it's not standard?
Well, we could add a "Subject" creator role for two reasons: a) annotating Zotero items for organizing purposes and b) citations. For b) I would like to see style guide examples where a subject is included, but I don't really have any reservations for supporting a) (for which we don't need a CSL mapping).
A letter recipient isn't a creator either, but as ajlyon notes we still use a 'recipient' creatorType for letters, and we generate a virtual title ("[Letter to Smith]") from it.
I'm with Bruce - that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense as a creator field. If we're going to add this, than as a separate field - but I'm not sure why that should be specific to images.
Books can be about people (biographies etc.) as can films, tapes etc. So the "subject" field could apply to any item. But then, why are people different from say, countries, cities, landscapes etc. which then makes the field so broad as to be meaningless - and also, perfectly substitutable by a tag.
edit: well - if the subject is going to be used in the citation, I'm all for adding this as a field, creator would make sense, because we have that set-up for people. But I don't think we have seen any evidence of that and I tried to look around.
Fine with me either way. Just wanted to reiterate that there's a precedent for using the creator field for associated people if it seems necessary—e.g., if it's part of the citation.
Upgrade Storage
The problem is actually not that it's only "broad" (as mark characterizes it), but that it's both too broad AND too narrow.
It is broad WRT to the expression type (could be an image, or an object, or even music in theory), while being narrow WRT to the work type or genre (art).
What if, for example, I have a diagram, or a medical autopsy photo, or historical drawing of some building that is purely technical in nature. These aren't "artworks".
For mark, I suggest you use "artwork" ATM. Just want to note this as another one of those problem types.
Perhaps "artwork" should be renamed as "picture" then; but then how would one cite an artwork that's an object? Another item type? A sculpture is not a "document" I think so "document" wouldn't work. We had discussed this before in another thread:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/1274/how-might-the-artwork-type-be-expanded/#Item_1
I believe there were some useful suggestions there for the future.
And since we have "video recording" and "audio recording" as types, I felt it would make sense to have the 'still equivalent' of such recordings, i.e. "photo". Thing is, very many photos are not intended as works of art, but just to capture information much like audio and video recordings do.
[edit]
And actually, I don't think Artwork should be renamed to Photo; just as you mention, it is a useful type for all sorts of work of art. So I'd be in favour of adding Photo and keeping Artwork.
I usually put "b/w negative, gelatin dry plate" etc. into "medium" field--can you explain why this info wouldn't fit in "medium"?
I think you're right that "b/w negative, gelatin dry plate" could in principle be put into the "medium" field.
Anyway, the point remains that it would make sense, I think, to have a non-artwork equivalent of video and audio recordings, namely "Photo". But until that's added (if it is), I'll just keep using the Artwork type.
It may be possible to make changes to the artwork type in Zotero 2.1, but the existing discussions don't provide clear indication of what should change, what fields are needed.
"Place" would also be a good addition. For photographs, it will often be the place where the photo was taken or published; photo calling cards (for those of us who traffic in the late 19th century...), if they are covered by this type, have a specific location of publication. Place could be confusing for artwork that is displayed-- the places of creation and exhibition are likely to differ.
I'd say the choice is between keeping artwork and adding another "image" or "photo" category, or by renaming artwork to "image".
I'll spend 20mins this pm looking at some citations to see what makes sense. I actually have a historian working with photos next door, so that part is easy. I'll guess I'll see what art historians do - I've not seen many of them around here, unfortunately.
@ailyon: there is a proposal to split up "Place" into "Event Place" and "Publisher Place", see https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues#issue/6
There does not seem to be any particular information required by Historians that wouldn't currently be possible (i.e. creator, title, date taken, location in archive).
In Art History, citations tend to be under the printed images (other images are just referred to in text without citation information). They look like this (from Art History the flagship journal of the professional association in the US)
Hans Holbein the Younger, Christina of Denmark, Duchess of
Milan, 1538. Oil on oak, 179.1 x 82.6 cm. London: National
Gallery. Presented by the National Art Collections Fund, with
the aid of an anonymous donation, 1909. Photo: National
Gallery of London.
Mostly this is covered (we have medium and size already). The "Presented by..." part is rare and could just be part of the Location in Archive.
The only thing that is consistently provided and doesn't seem to fit is the "Photo:" line - this is also frequently a copyright line, so it could go into the "rights" field - but that's never mapped, is it?
How about my proposal of adding the new creator role "Subject"? For portraiture (inc. photography), the depicted person is central information that would be good to include in a standard way. While the subject does not produce the work (create it), I think that this is similar to Reviewed Author or Recipient, creator roles that do not entail creating the work at hand.
Books can be about people (biographies etc.) as can films, tapes etc. So the "subject" field could apply to any item. But then, why are people different from say, countries, cities, landscapes etc. which then makes the field so broad as to be meaningless - and also, perfectly substitutable by a tag.
edit: well - if the subject is going to be used in the citation, I'm all for adding this as a field, creator would make sense, because we have that set-up for people. But I don't think we have seen any evidence of that and I tried to look around.