Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T16:03:42.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Art and Architecture Program of the Research Libraries Group

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Nancy S. Allen
Nancy S. Allen*
Affiliation:
William Morris Hunt Memorial Library, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

By the late 1970’s many of the full members of the Research Libraries Group (RLG) were academic institutions with major art libraries. The possibilities of special membership afforded museum libraries the opportunity to contribute to the database as well. In 1979 the Art and Architecture Program Committee of RLG was formed and charged with advising the president of RLG on special requirements of art and architecture and the information needs of scholars and professionals in the field. Through its accomplishments in supporting cooperation among art librarians and launching art documentation projects the AAPC serves as an interesting model for art librarians networking on a national and international basis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , 1988 , pp. 5 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and references

1. About RLG: The Research Libraries Group, Inc., Stanford: RLG Inc., 1988, p.2–4.Google Scholar
2. Art and Architecture: The Research Libraries Group, Stanford: RLG Inc., 1984.Google Scholar
3. In 1985 the libraries of the Brooklyn Museum of Art, Metropolitan Museum, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and Museum of Modern Art received from Pew Memorial Trust funds to supplement the Getty/RLG monies for the conversion of portions of their collection. The fact that the request was tied to the RLG retrospective conversion effort and that the libraries approached the Pew Trust as a “consortium” with links to the AAPC, rather than as four separate libraries, was most probably the key to receiving this highly competitive funding.Google Scholar
4. Horrell, Jeffrey, “The RLG Conspectus and the NCIP Project: A Means to a Beginning”. Art Documentation, Fall 1987, p.106–107.Google Scholar
5. Institutions which have begun to input art archives include: The Art Institute of Chicago, The Brooklyn Museum, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Getty Center Library, Museum of Modern Art, National Gallery of Art, and the Rosenback Museum.Google Scholar
6. SCIPIO: On-line Catalog of Art Sales Catalogs. Stanford: RLG, 1985.Google Scholar
7. “Preliminary Report of the Disciplinary Survey in the Humanities-Classical Studies, History, and the History of Art”, unpublished draft paper prepared by The Program for Research Information Management, RLG, Inc.Google Scholar
8. Van de Waal, H., ICONCLASS: An Iconographie Classication System, Completed and Edited by L. D. Couprie. North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, 1973–1985. (20 volumes).Google Scholar
9. Art and Architecture Thesaurus. J. Paul Getty Trust: Williamstown: J. Paul Getty Trust, 1986.Google Scholar
10. Bower, Jim. “Visual Resources in the RLIN Network: Summary Analysis”, prepared for the AAPC annual meeting, Dallas, Texas, February 5, 1988.Google Scholar
11. For an annual fee of $135, a library can become a CLASS subscriber and choose between two different levels of RLIN service: 1) Search Service which allows bibliographic verification, copy cataloging, and searching of all RLIN files, and/or 2) Cataloging Service which allows shared cataloging in the RLIN database, use of the acquisition system, and online interlibrary loan services on RLIN. Currently fourteen institutions outside the U.S., including the Australian National Gallery, subscribe to CLASS with Search Service accounts accessing RLIN through International Telenet. For information about the fees and features associated with the different levels of service contact:Google Scholar