NYPL’s Pageant of America Collection

I’ve chosen to look at the New York Public Library’s The Pageant of America Collection.  The collection is separated into 15 series by theme, a series dedicated to Canadian photographs, and a series called “Other photographs” which contains only large format photographs. The 15 series by theme are further broken down into published and unpublished images, while the Canadian photographs are broken down by theme/location. The unpublished sub-series are again broken down into sub-sub-series by theme/location.  At an item level the images are described using an image title, alternate source title, creator, associated people, image/page/plate, notes, source, source description, location of the item, digital ID, record ID, and date published.  

At a series and sub-series level I think that the breakdown mostly makes sense.  Breaking down into the themes that the images were published under is logical and separating the Canadian photographs is practical as well.  Where I think the series breakdown doesn’t make sense is in the ‘Other photographs’ series.  Because it only contains large format photographs, I think it should simply be called what it is - the title should be “Large format photographs.”  Additionally, while I understand the need to physically separate out materials that are oversized, I believe they should be intellectually linked to the series that they belong to.  If a separate series is going to be created for oversized materials, there should be a note either at the series level, or the item level explaining where these images fit into the collection.  Another option would be to physically separate the oversized materials, but in the finding aid, simply include it in the series it belongs with and include a note stating that this photograph is physically stored elsewhere with other oversized material.  I also wish that there was more of an explanation of the scope of each series.  The way it is set up now, the only source of information is the title – most of which are fairly vague or broad. 

At an item level, I believe the collection works fairly well also.  The titles are listed first, clearly labelled, and descriptive.  Alternate titles are used when the titles are not clear or to add further description.  The creators are usually credited, and the words “photographer,” “copyright holder,” etc. are listed after the creator’s name to clarify their relationship to the photograph.  It is also great that each item has a location and a unique call number so that users can easily find resources they’ve viewed before and so that staff knows where to find the item physically should the user request it.  I also like that some images have a front and back view, allowing users to see any markings, writing, stamps, etc. present on the photographs.  Conspicuously absent are the photographic processes of the photographs.  Nowhere does it say if they are albumen, salted paper, silver gelatin, etc.  It does however identify when the photograph is a stereograph, cigarette card, etc. 

The subject headings seem to be from the Library of Congress, which is good in that they are at least using some sort of standard.  Something like AAT or TGM would probably be a better choice here.  Where I feel the subject headings are weak are in their coverage.  They tend to cover location, proper names, and format while leaving out key pieces of what is in the photograph.  An image I found of a bridge doesn’t use anything related to bridges as a subject heading.  It would be an excellent resource for anyone searching for images of bridges, yet there is no subject heading to indicate this has anything to do with bridges. 

In theory, it’s very helpful that the subjects are also links – this allows for easy browsing by subject.  However, the way this collection implements them is a bit of a mixed bag.  Clicking on a link will return all of the photographs that use that subject heading – not just the ones within the Pageant of America Collection.  This is good in that the user receives even more resources than they were expecting.  It’s negative in that it doesn’t state or make obvious in any way that it’s doing this.  If a user only wants to see materials from a specific collection, it is very easy to think you’re viewing materials from one collection, when in reality you’re viewing another collection entirely. 

Another con I find with this system of description is that the titles of the categories are sometimes unclear, which can lead to users becoming confused about what the information is saying.  It took me a while to figure out that “Source Description” was analogous to the extent of the collection and not the size of an individual print.  It’s wonderful to provide your users with information, but if the containers the data are plugged into are not labelled clearly, then it renders the information much less useful.  Personally, I also dislike that not every category is included with every photograph.  Photographs that are missing pieces of information (like an alternate title, or a creator) are simply excluded instead of left blank.  While I realize leaving many fields blank takes up a lot of space, I find it helpful to know when there are pieces of information missing instead of having to try to identify those gaps myself. 

Overall, this collection is better than a lot of other collections I’ve seen.  Most important elements are present and things tend to be presented clearly.  It seems that this collection was processed and described using traditional archival procedures, which can sometimes prove to be clunky when translated to modern online databases.   It also continues to use Library of Congress subject headings, which aren’t the most intuitive to begin with, and are especially unsuited for describing visual materials.  This collection’s system of description has a lot of potential - with a few relatively minor adjustments I think this collection’s system of description could be fantastic.