Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T16:18:16.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Documenting whose heritage? The problem of point of view in documenting American cultural property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Deirdre C. Stam
Deirdre C. Stam*
Affiliation:
School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y.
Get access

Abstract

In the United States, as elsewhere, cultural history represents, and is itself shaped by, many points of view. The existence of differing views of cultural history is reflected, in the United States, by the variety and independence of cultural institutions. Such a diversity of approaches does not facilitate the development of a nation-wide overview or of a national databank or national methodologies; however, progress is now being made in terms of cooperation and coordination, especially through the development and acceptance of standards which make different data systems compatible with one another.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 15 , Special Issue 1: Special issue: ’Le patrimoine culturel–papers from the IFLA Section of Art libraries Pre-conference at Paris, August 1989 , 1990 , pp. 14 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 1990

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. Groube, Les. “The Ownership of diversity; the problem of establishing a national history in a land of nine hundred ethnic groups,” in McBride, Isabel ed., Who owns the past? Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1985 p.49.Google Scholar
2. Edwards, R. and Steward, J. eds. Preserving indigenous cultures: a new role for museums. Canberra, Australia: Government Publishing Service, 1980. p. 27.Google Scholar
3. Gombrich, E. H. In search of cultural history. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969, passim.Google Scholar
4. See for example, Braudel, Fernand. The Structures of everyday life; the limits of the possible; Vol. I of Civilization and Capitalism – 15th-18th Century. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.Google Scholar
5. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel, in, for example, Love, death, and money in the Pays d’Oc. New York: Braziller, 1982.Google Scholar
6. Schlereth, Thomas J. Material culture studies in America. Nashville, Tennessee: American Association for State and Local History, 1982 p. 2.Google Scholar
7. Tay, Alice Erh Soon. “Law and cultural heritage,” in Who owns the past? Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 118–9.Google Scholar
8. Ainsley, Michael L. “Historic preservation in the United States,” in Why preserve the past? the challenge to our cultural heritage, ed., Isar, Yudhishthir Raj. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, p. 164.Google Scholar
9. Honan, William H. “Congressional anger threatens arts endowment’s budget”. New York Times, June 20, 1989, C15, C20.Google Scholar
10. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Computers and their potential applications in museums. New York: Arno Press, 1968, passim.Google Scholar
11. Stam, Deirdre C. “The Quest for a code, or a brief history of the computerized cataloging of art objects”. Art Documentation vol. 8, no. 1 Spring, 1989 p. 7–15.Google Scholar
12. Bearman, David. “A Framework for museum standards”. Spectra vol. 16, no. 2 Summer, 1989 p. 1–5.Google Scholar
13. The temporary Steering Committee for this Task Force has its headquarters at the Museum Computer Network, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244.Google Scholar
14. Eliot, T. S. “The Rock”. 1934, I.Google Scholar