Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T16:09:37.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Class N, or, Classifying the fine arts using the Library of Congress classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Sherman Clarke
Sherman Clarke*
Affiliation:
33 South Main Street, Alfred, NY 14802, USA
*
Email: sherman.clarke@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Class N is the schedule for the fine arts in the Library of Congress classification scheme. LCC reflects the needs of a general research library but number construction is flexible and the scheme is kept current. It has worked well for many art and architecture collections, but what are some of the issues with the scheme? Can a general scheme satisfy the needs of the focused collection in a special library? And there is the unasked and unanswered question: does shelf classification matter in the 21st century, especially for digital materials?

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , 2011 , pp. 22 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2011

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

1. A fuller discussion of the differences between LC and Dewey Decimal schemes, specifically for art, may be found in Walker, William B., ‘Art books and periodicals: Dewey and LC,’ Library trends 23, no. 3 (Jan. 1975): 451–470.Google Scholar
2. Walker, William B., ‘Some notes on LC Class N,’ ARLIS/NA newsletter 2, no. 3/4 (1974): 33–34.Google Scholar
3. Cuttering is used to subdivide a topic. For example, 20th-century art is subdivided alphanumerically at N6494 for special aspects or movements (F6 for found objects, P6 for Pop art). Cuttering is also used for the alphanumeric sequencing of names in a particular class or subclass (P5 for Picasso).Google Scholar
4. See the article by Lynda Bunting and Ani Matosian on pages 44-49 of this issue.Google Scholar
5. More information on the SACO Program is available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/saco/saco.html.Google Scholar
6. Martin Flynn’s article in an earlier 2011 issue of Art libraries journal discusses the cost and usefulness of traditional library cataloging and catalogs. He reviews four recent reports on the topic. I do not here question the value of classification but recognize that it is an expensive operation, done mostly by experienced catalogers. See Flynn, Martin, ‘From dominance to decline? The future of bibliographic discovery, access and delivery,’ Art libraries journal 36, no. 2 (2011): 33–36.Google Scholar