Art -> Art and Design

I think there should be a "Design" category - perhaps with Art? Thought prompted by being asked to classify this book: http://www.librarything.com/work/13985

I heartily agree.
I think the combination with Art, although endlessly debatable, is fairly intuitive and commonly used...a good choice.

I think so too. I'd suggest architecture be merged into art, if architecture didn't have possible non-artistic meanings. (Just look at most modern skyscrapers. Isn't the big glass and metal box getting a bit old?)

There's a similar/related discussion in this thread, starting in the second post.

I'm not too familiar with Architecture books but don't they generally fall into either the Art or the Engineering camps?

4> We have a lot of architecture books at work, and architecture books that focus on design go in Art, including design of specific types of buildings. The stuff that goes in Engineering is pretty clearly on the construction materials/methods side.

This is the LC classification bias though - I have catalogued with it so long that I tend to think of it like that.

>6 Otsana:: I wouldn't call the architecture itself different necessarily - but the approach of the books usually is. ;-)

>8 Otsana:
I wouldn't call it "easy." There's too much gray area (such as art history books about architecture).

Topic: Art, architecture http://www.librarything.com/topic/55533
has debated architecture.

We have the museum-coalition in Olso called;
"The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design"

the link; http://www.nationalmuseum.no/

This museum is lokated different places and consists of;
"The Art Hall at Tullinløkka",
"The National Museum - Architecture",
"The Museum of Contemperary Art",
"The Museum of Decorative Arts and Design" and "The National Gallery"

So maybe two artboxes;
1; "ART"
2; "Decorative Arts & Design"

So maybe two artboxes;
1; "ART"
2; "Decorative Arts & Design" (#10)

That might pose a problem with, say, a book that covers all of William Morris's work (that is, not just the wallpaper designs, if you catch my drift).

Like I have stated in that other thread : I would be in favour of something like "Art, Architecture & Design" (including photography) - as a top level category - just because there are so many books that wouldn't fit any of these separately.

I agree. Architecture touches Engineering, but is primarily concerned with design. Engineering fields such as Structural (and its sub-category Architectural) Engineering focus on how to make a building/structure stand. This is not to say that structure can not be artful, just that the primary focus Engineering is different from that of Architecture.

>13 yue:
My dad -- who is an architect -- would, I think, agree with you on that.

A lot of books are about more than one subject, I like more than less topheadings. Its easier because at next level you will divide it anyway. The same problem will then be just as difficult.

You don't have to divide at the next level. If E is "Art, Architecture & Design" and a certain book is really about all of those things, then the notation for that book would just be E and not E1 or E2.

I have a lot of them, if I don't subdivide (or the library) I will never find them. To find the books are the whole point, isn't it ?

You have a lot of what? Books that are about all three of those topics in equal measure? If so, they are all about the same topic and should not be divided from each other. If some of your books are predominately about one of the three topics then they can be divided at the next level. (But there's a problem if you're book is about two of the three topics in equal measure).

Greetings! David and I have been busy compiling and analyzing all your comments, and a post with new top levels is forthcoming!

In the interim, take a look on Thingology (http://www.librarything.com/thingology) at the summary of the OSC meeting we had in Denver last weekend.

I have a question about the instruction in the art main topic:

"For works about collecting art or art objects, use subjects in the antiques and collectibles section"

So a book like Collecting contemporary by Adam Lindeman would be in the Antiques and Collectibles section? That seems weird.

There are multiple places I might look for books about sculpting...

ART / Sculpture
ART / Technique / Sculpting
ART / Individual artist
(I'm assuming that this group would include artists who are sculptors?)
ART / Collections, Catalogs, Exhibitions
(I'm assuming that this group would include catalogs for exhibitions of sculpture, but not exhibition catalogs for shows containing the work of only one individual artist?)

But would these subtypes wouldn't be next to each other on the shelf. Would

ART / Sculpture
ART / Technique / Sculpting

and if there is a third tier

ART / Individual artist / Sculptors

be near each other on the shelf?

>21 artcat: : The're even more places.

Think about it:
Crafts & Hobbies / ? / Sculpture might also be valid for how-to books.

We do need to address the subcategories. But if we can't agree on the top categories yet...

Anyway, whether or not books would end up on on the same shelf will always depend on the size and focus of the library itself. In some libraries all the books about art, architecture and design together might fit snugly onto one shelf, while at my old University this part of the library had its own building.

THIS TOPIC IS CLOSED!
Please continue discussions on the new topics
ART and/or DESIGN