Listing the artist featured in an art book as a secondary author?

CharlasTalk about LibraryThing

Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.

Listing the artist featured in an art book as a secondary author?

1gcthomas
Ene 17, 2021, 6:29 pm

For an art book featuring the works of a single artist, is it appropriate to include that artist as an "author" of the work? Does it matter whether the artist was actively involved in the work's publication?

For example, https://www.librarything.com/work/2825007/ features 58 reproductions of illustrations by Katsushika Hokusai (1760–1849), first published in the *Hokusai Manga* collection during the Edo period. This book was published in 2007, so Hokusai obviously did not have a direct role in the book's publication, but the majority of the book's pages are his work. Does it make sense to list him as an author, perhaps in the role of Illustrator or a custom role such as "Artist"?

2abbottthomas
Ene 17, 2021, 6:52 pm

This is an interesting question. My gut feeling is that there should be intent on the part of the author, illustrator or whatever to participate in the creation of the book, so, in the example given, I would not list Hokusai.

However I wouldn't argue with anyone who thought differently!

3SandraArdnas
Ene 17, 2021, 6:56 pm

Yes. It's not that different from illustrator IMO. I believe you'll have to add the role manually, though

4AnnieMod
Ene 17, 2021, 6:58 pm

>2 abbottthomas: Then should we not add Shakespeare as an author to the collections of his works that had been published since his death? Or to collected stories and novels of authors :) Or to published "found early novels" published long after an author dies? :)

If the book contains works from the author, they are a co-author in my book. The only question is if it should be primary or secondary...

5SandraArdnas
Ene 17, 2021, 7:03 pm

>4 AnnieMod: The only question is if it should be primary or secondary...

I agree. It varies from work to work. I have some monographs that barely have any text, just the intro and captions for paintings, which would make the artist probaly the only primary author

6lilithcat
Ene 17, 2021, 7:33 pm

>1 gcthomas:

is it appropriate to include that artist as an "author" of the work?

I don't do it, I don't think it's appropriate.

7gcthomas
Ene 17, 2021, 8:26 pm

>3 SandraArdnas: The reason I hesitate to use "Illustrator" is that could imply that the artwork serves to illustrate the text, whereas in the case of art books it's often the reverse.

8rosalita
Ene 17, 2021, 9:18 pm

How is this different than, say, Bob Dylan All the Songs which looks in detail at song lyrics? Would you list Dylan as an author on that book?

9MarthaJeanne
Ene 18, 2021, 1:15 am

I don't understand why anyone would not think that it is appropriate.

10SandraArdnas
Ene 18, 2021, 4:36 am

>7 gcthomas: Yes, that's why I said you'd probably have to add a role manually - artist, painter, sculptor or some such. Illustrator would only be appropriate if the artwork featured is from illustration, and even then it would be confusing with doing illustrations for a particular book

11Nicole_VanK
Ene 18, 2021, 5:48 am

It can create an awful mess. "Rembrandt" by Rembrandt, no ISBN. So who actually created that book? Not Mr. Rembrandt.

12Nicole_VanK
Editado: Ene 18, 2021, 7:44 am

Este mensaje fue borrado por su autor.

13Nicole_VanK
Ene 18, 2021, 6:11 am

Having said that, I have no objection to listing them as secondary authors (I prefer "featured artist" or something like that).

I have yet to do that for much of my own collection.

14-pilgrim-
Ene 18, 2021, 6:52 am

I have used "main author" if the artist is likely to have actively contributed in the construction of the book, and "secondary author" for where their work makes up a significant proportion of the book, but the contribution had been made passively e.g. posthumously.

Does anyone have an issue with that approach?

>11 Nicole_VanK: I have seen that problem arise from "coffee table" type books by bulk publishing houses. They often do not credit the person who assembled their book, so the choice is between the person whose work is included (Rembrandt) or naming the publishing house as author. Neither solution is desirable, but the information that you really want - who compiled this collection - is often not actually available.

15Nicole_VanK
Editado: Ene 18, 2021, 7:35 am

>14 -pilgrim-: In that case I would choose the publishing house. At least that gives some degree of disambiguation. But I agree there is no really satisfying way to handle such publications.

16Nicole_VanK
Editado: Ene 18, 2021, 7:43 am

>9 MarthaJeanne: I was a librarian's assistant at the art history department of Leiden University for a while (mostly just typing out catalogue cards - yes, I'm that old). It would have gotten me fired :)

17lilithcat
Ene 18, 2021, 9:36 am

I think I don't do it for the same reason I don't list the subject of a biography as an author, no matter how many of her writings it quotes.

18jjwilson61
Ene 18, 2021, 9:52 am

>17 lilithcat: But if it included an entire short story you'd list the author, wouldn't you?

19SandraArdnas
Ene 18, 2021, 10:00 am

>17 lilithcat: But the point is whether you include them as author in a book of their quotes, at least that is how I understood the original inquiry - applied to works featuring their artworks extensively enough, single artist monographs, exhibition catalogues and such.

Either way, I'm glad this issue was raised because I have a number of such books I'm yet to catalogue

20lilithcat
Ene 18, 2021, 10:11 am

>18 jjwilson61:, >19 SandraArdnas:

There just seems to be to be a distinction between a book about someone, and a book by someone.

21MarthaJeanne
Editado: Ene 18, 2021, 10:27 am

>20 lilithcat: But if the book is largely reproductions of the artist's pictures, then a lot of the book is by the artist. And certainly the artist has as much right to be listed as an illustrator.

>16 Nicole_VanK: A library has the right to make rules and insist that employees follow them. In LibraryThing we are each head librarian of our own libraries. If having weird authors cobbled together out of two or three names doesn't get someone thrown off the site, this won't either.

22abbottthomas
Ene 18, 2021, 11:12 am

>4 AnnieMod: In the examples you give, Shakespeare et al., the creator was intending that his/her creation should be printed and probably would have hoped that the work would outlive him/her. Hokusai may or may not have anticipated reproductions of his paintings being printed in books (too early for photogravure) but for sure he produced them as one-off art works and would not have thought of himself as a book illustrator. Despite alternative views here I think that intent is important.

23SandraArdnas
Ene 18, 2021, 11:14 am

>20 lilithcat: Indeed, that's why I cited as examples books whose content is predominantely artworks, not text. That is often the bulk of the book. Like I said, some have no text at all apart from the introduction. So you have a 10-page intro and 150-300 pages of art reproductions

24Crypto-Willobie
Ene 18, 2021, 11:35 am

I think it doesn't hurt to list the artist as a Main or even Primary author -- after all they created the Content even if it isn't Text -- as long as there is also a disambiguating Main or Primary author used -- an editor, commentator, publisher or what have you.

25aspirit
Editado: Ene 18, 2021, 2:15 pm

When a book is about someone unaware of its creation, I would feel uncomfortable including the subject in the Author (creator) field. That is, unless the book is significantly made up of the subject's work, like in an art book.

In this case, I think Hokusai as "Artist" (but not Illustrator) makes sense.

26paradoxosalpha
Ene 19, 2021, 10:14 am

I'm ambivalent about this issue, and intrigued by the hard positions adopted on either side.

I understand the desirability of uniform standards for work-level data, but the "correct" answer here seems in no way self-evident.

27Nicole_VanK
Editado: Ene 19, 2021, 12:20 pm

In my not so humble opinion:

Goya's "Disasters of war" for example - definitely attribute it to Goya. He created it as such. My Rembrandt book by Jan Veth (1906) is nowhere near the same thing as my Rembrandt book by Jacob Rosenberg (1968) though - so definitely not. Let alone more modern works about him. Rembrandt was not involved in creating any of those books - they just have reproductions of what may or may not be his work (depending on interpretation).

I won't start a war over this. However, I frequently had to pull works apart because they were "artist's name" by "artist's name", but ISBN (and/or the actual author's/editor's name) tells me it's an entirely different book about said artist.

Though I understand some library rules say so, I consider it bad practice.

28krazy4katz
Ene 19, 2021, 12:33 pm

I agree with >27 Nicole_VanK:. I think an art book looking at the works of a specific artist is equivalent to a biography of a specific person. In that case, you wouldn't put the subject of the biography as an author. I think the same applies to art books.

Perhaps an exception might be made if the artist sat for an interview that appears in the book, which would almost be like an introduction from a secondary author.

29SandraArdnas
Ene 19, 2021, 1:13 pm

>27 Nicole_VanK: But the issue is not whether not to include editor/author name, but rather whether also listing the artist is desirable/acceptable practice (when their work features significantly). I'm afraid people who have entries 'artist name' by 'artist name' will remain as is whatever our conclusions and agreed upon community practices. They do not go over their own data, let alone forum discussions and guidelines.

I wouldn't wage any wars over this either, I just think it's reasonable and informative to include artists among authors when half or more of the work is their work. It would provide quick access to a list of works where their work takes center stage (as opposed to works merely about them and/or featuring an occasional reproduction in a predominately textual work). On a personal level, I can do this with tags, of course, but that is limited to my own library. I still wouldn't know what other catalogued books have extensive van Gogh artwork.


30conceptDawg
Ene 19, 2021, 1:28 pm

>29 SandraArdnas: I'm also not going to wage any wars over this but it introduces a slippery slope. At what threshold do you put an artist as a secondary author? Only if the book is ONLY about that one artist? What about a book about a genre of art that might cover the works of two or three artists? Do they qualify? Again, I'm not arguing one way or another (and it's certainly not an official stance), I'm just here to throw mud in the water that is this discussion.

31SandraArdnas
Editado: Ene 19, 2021, 2:17 pm

>30 conceptDawg: I don't know, this would I assume be discussed if the option is generally accepted. Personally, I would use it only on works where the artworks themselves are the focus, not merely an occasional illustration in a book that is primarily about art history/theory/biography. It might sound vague, but I expect anyone in possession of an art book can tell by merely skimming through whether that is something you'd refer to if you want to see said artist's work, rather than read about it.

For multiple artists, I personally don't have any where I would list artists as authors, usually they feature more than 2-3, so even if the book is mainly artworks, they are spread across numerous artists. But perhaps there are some that feature enough artworks by each to feel you've seen something that qualifies as a sort of exhibition of their work.

Edit: What about photographers? I'm sure I've ran across books featuring extensive photographs not done specifically for the book in question. Are they not listed as authors?

32abbottthomas
Ene 19, 2021, 2:51 pm

>31 SandraArdnas: Yes, what about photographers? I was going to say that the books of photographs I have - e.g Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs - are clearly created by the photographer and properly carry his/her name as author. Then I looked at my copy of Saul Bass edited by Bass' daughter, Jennifer, and written by design historian Pat Kirkham after Saul Bass had died, full of images as well as biography and, blow me down, I had entered Saul as 'main author'.

True to my expressed opinion I have removed his name so he features only in the title. He might have guessed that someone would write a book illustrated by his work but his designs were only intended for the cinema screen or posters outside. I have edited my entry.

33Stevil2001
Editado: Ene 19, 2021, 3:12 pm

I think a rule of thumb about intentionality isn't very useful; Edgar Allan Poe never intended a set of his stories should be assembled as a book called The Science Fiction of Edgar Allan Poe, and yet to list anyone other than him as (a) main author of the work seems misleading. I feel like the same thing is true for collections of artwork. I agree with >29 SandraArdnas: & >31 SandraArdnas:.

34abbottthomas
Ene 19, 2021, 5:58 pm

>33 Stevil2001: Sure, but Poe did intend that his work should end up on a printed page.

Chacun a son gout ;-)

35SandraArdnas
Ene 19, 2021, 6:31 pm

Just remembered that artists are already credited as authors when their artworks appear on covers. Penguin Modern Classics has a whole host of them, for instance. So if Munch can be credited as cover artists, why not as an artist in a book featuring dozens of his works not marred by titles and logos?

36SandraArdnas
Ene 19, 2021, 7:26 pm

While we are debating this, the practice is apparently already to include artists among authors, if my brief survey is anything to go by. From what I've seen, they are main authors in exhibition catalogues and similarly visually oriented monographs, secondary-all editions in more text-oriented ones.

Here are some examples of above mentioned Munch
https://www.librarything.com/work/1267321
https://www.librarything.com/work/791962
https://www.librarything.com/work/2570422

37spiphany
Ene 20, 2021, 4:37 am

I don't have strong opinions about this either way and I don't think the question of whether a book is "by" an artist or "about" an artist's work is always going to be clear-cut.
That said, in a very general sense I think it makes sense to list the artist as an author (possibly secondary -- in any case in addition to, not instead of, the person responsible for assembling the book) in volumes that consist mostly of large, high-quality images of the artist's work.

I find the "intentionality" criteria very confusing. It doesn't hold water for me, regardless of what kind of work (written or visual) we're talking about.
Should Kafka (most of whose writings were published posthumously more-or-less against his wishes) therefore be removed as author from "The Trial" because he wanted the manuscript destroyed? What about an oral poet like Homer (or the generations of rhapsodes responsible for the work credited to his name) who lived before written literature was widespread and surely could not have expected or intended that someday this work would be presented in fixed form and consumed mostly in the form of bound, printed books?
Artists working in the modern era are surely aware that their works are likely to be made available in formats other than the ones they work in, and even if they are not directly involved in the creation of an art book containing their work, they still hold the rights to the reproduction of their creations. Should renaissance painters be treated differently merely because the technologies of mass reproduction had not yet been invented and they aren't alive to claim copyright? If so, at what point in history do we draw the line?

A more relevant point of comparison might be something like retellings for children of classic works -- while the story is still recognizable, the work is clearly one step removed from the writer's own creation, much the way a high-quality photograph of, say, a sculpture or piece of street art is different in important ways from the original.
I'm not sure if there's ever been a clear consensus on how these are handled on LT, either, though it doesn't seem to be uncommon for children's Shakespeare or graphic novel adaptations to be credited to Shakespeare as either primary or secondary author (though the versions by Charles and Mary Lamb are not).

38abbottthomas
Ene 20, 2021, 3:59 pm

>37 spiphany: The examples in your second paragraph have almost convinced me of the error of my ways.

Re Homer - a new category of ‘Storyteller’ maybe?

39susanbooks
Editado: Ene 21, 2021, 7:03 pm

If I want to find a book of physical reproductions of an artist's work, I'd look for a book in my library by that artist. I wouldn't look for an editor's name that would be meaningless to me. As people are saying, Van Gogh or whomever created the actual content, just as Edgar Allen Poe created the actual content of a collection of his stories edited by someone else.

If it's a bio of the artist, a critical evaluation of their work, or a collection of multiple artists' works, then the author/editor's name makes sense bc the author created the content or worked hard enough at curating two or more artists' work to fit together meaningfully in a way that neither artist did by themselves.

Imho

40rosalita
Ene 21, 2021, 8:19 pm

>39 susanbooks: Just to play devil’s advocate, if I wanted to find a book of reproductions of an artist’s work I would search for books with the artist’s name in the title. Are there examples that fit what we’re discussing in this thread that would not refer to the artist in the title? I’m sincerely asking, because I don’t know.

41SandraArdnas
Ene 21, 2021, 9:05 pm

>40 rosalita: Yes, but not often.The same is true for largely textual works about those artists, so titles themselves will land you with both.

I'm actually quite happy with how this has been handled in catalogued art books I've checked. Those who include the artist among authors also include editors and/or museums/publishers. But I checked top works on several pages, perhaps it's not that stellar further down the line with books with fewer records

42melannen
Ene 21, 2021, 11:11 pm

I have no opinion on the general matter, but I want to point out that Hokusai was mostly doing woodblock ukiyo-e prints, which would have been intended to be published in multiple copies, often as book illustrations or print sets, so arguing that his works weren't intended to be "published" or on a "printed page" is not true!

That's true of a lot of artists; even classical European painters often had workshops of people mass-producing cheap copies of their famous works to sell. So I don't think that's a useful metric.