THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF CONTEMPORARY ART AND THE FINE ARTS LIBRARY.

摘要

Intention. The characterization of an information network in contemporary art and the relationship of the fine arts library to it were sought. Elements which typify networks in the sciences were described and analogies considered in art. Production and collection of documentation were viewed as reflecting values formed in such a network. Fourteen art libraries: museum, academic and public, were examined for holdings on forty artists representing three levels of prominence, evidenced by standard reference books. Formal (cataloged) and informal (vertical file) collections were analyzed, as well as major bibliographic resources. Librarians and others presumed to be in such a network were interviewed.;Implications. The network seems to shape and limit access to documentation. Libraries need more than the conventional selection tools in this area. Also, as values change, informal collections need monitoring for items of increased importance or for conservation. Automated cooperative cataloging and indexing are important since material is so scattered. These will be enhanced when document delivery systems are in place, since information sought is largely pictorial.;Analysis. From readings, interviews and analysis it was determined that what is popularly known as "the art world" constitutes an information network. A primary pathway in it concerns the exhibition of art, and a secondary pathway its documentation. Gatekeepers aid or hinder the flow of communication. In the secondary pathway, museum libraries have the strongest collections, likely a consequence of their proximity to the primary pathway. Holdings in formal collections resembled a Zipf-Trueswell distribution, with even higher representation of documentation for the most prominent artists than such predicts. Most libraries had between 10% and 25% of the aggregate total items, and about 50% of monographs. Proportions differed between types of libraries as well as between formal and informal collections. Over 60% of items in formal collections were held by only one library, and the lack of overlap was conspicuous.