Photo Collections: The Met vs. The Field Museum

       For this assignment, I chose to compare the collection descriptions of two museums, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Field Museum in Chicago. As someone who is particularly interested in museum registration, I am interested to discover how various museums approach the online, user-viewed descriptions of photographs within their collections and how these photographic records might relate to object records. I chose these two museums for several reasons. First, I considered the size and reputations of the museums, assuming that these two would aspire to be at the forefront of online collection description and metadata. Secondly, I considered the collections themselves. Both institutions house objects of incredible value and importance. However, I knew little about their photographic collections. While searching for photographic archives, I was particularly interested in archival photographs which might have been used in object accessioning and documentation. In essence, I was interested in the treatment of historic photographs in their own right and those images which serve as object surrogates. Lastly, I considered the approach of each museum. While the Met focuses more on objects of art historical importance, the Field Museum focuses on natural history. Would this make a difference in how archival photographs are cataloged? 

The Field Museum

The Field Museum's Photo Archives consist of over 30,000 images, mostly focusing on objects and related fields and museum history. The main photo archives page directs you to links to its various collections.

      Rather than providing collection-level descriptions, these galleries provide users with a sampling of images from the galleries. Images in these galleries include very limited metadata, but mention info regarding both the work and image displayed. The record below displays the work's descriptive title, materials, and original location, as well as the image's agents, accession number, and copyright information. 

Although these galleries were disappointing in their lack of any collection-level descriptions, the image slideshows provided an aesthetically pleasing and well-rounded sampling of the collections. 

     The main photo archives page also directs users to a flikr page with more extensive galleries. These photo galleries contained very basic collection-level descriptions as well as item-level metadata including descriptions, locations, and materials. 

The Metropolitan Museum of Art
     I found photographs in the Met's collection simply through indicating "photographs" in the Collection's search. The results page displayed thumbnails of individual items, apparently not arranged in any particular order. 

Below shows an item-level record, that of a photograph by Walker Evans. 

    This record includes the date, medium, dimensions, classification, accession number, and rights. After viewing this record, I repeated the search, limiting results to photographs by Walker Evans. I could not find a collection-level record through this search; however, I found this description through the Department of Photography. 

    The museum archives page gave little insight into the contents of the archive, rather, mostly contact information.

    While completing this exercise, I found both the Field Museum and the Met to have different yet effective means of presenting archival images. I found little difference besides slight changes in elements to differentiate between the cataloging of surrogates and historic images, as well as little variation in approach between the fine arts museum and the natural history museum. Both sites presented brief but adequate collection-level information as well as item-level metadata. While the Met had more extensive item-level metadata, the Field museum's collection did not appear to need thorough item-level cataloging. Several times in class, Professor Mahard stressed the value of a strong collection-level description, particularly when contrasted with weak, vague, item-level descriptions. In addition to providing users with excellent information, collection-level descriptions can save catalogers hours of valuable time. Jackie Dooley refers to this concept as “the myth of the need for item-level records,” writing that “item-level records for most archival photograph collections must similarly be recognized as another relic of a more leisurely past” (92). Rather, an organized, collection-level browsing layout “can be equally successful for many archival image collections” (Dooley 93). I think that the Field Museum accomplished this goal through its eye-catching browsing layouts, both on its own site and through flikr. The Met, on the other hand, did provide accurate cataloging at the item level, which I found valuable for items that were distinct and significant within their own collections. A more organized browsable format could be a useful way for users to discern individual collections within the entire collection at the Met. 

Works Cited:

Dooley, Jackie M. "Processing and Cataloging of Archival Photograph Collections."Visual Resources 11 (1995): 85-101.