Is it correct to say that LC’s policy according to LC PCC PS 188.8.131.52 is to always treat an original print work published with a commentary (that has its own title) as a compilation and to give analytical access points for the original work and commentary? This is an example given in the RDA special topics Powerpoint on compilations:
“245 00 $a Atiya's journeys : $b a Muslim woman from colonial Bombay to Edwardian Britain / $c Siobhan Lambert-Hurley and Sunil Sharma.
500 ## $a Includes the full English translation of Atiya Fyzee-Rahamin’s Time of education.
700 12 $a Lambert-Hurley, Siobhan. $t Atiya's journeys.
700 12 $aFyzee-Rahamin, Atiya Begum, $d 1876-1967. $t Zamanah-yi tahòsòil. $l English”
If this is true, does the policy differ for art catalogs that consist of reproductions of one artist’s works plus commentary on those works? An example from the RDA special topics Powerpoint on art catalogs given the main entry to the person presented as the author of the commentary:
“Catalog presented as the work of the person writing about the art:
100 1 $a Bailey, Colin B.
245 10 $a Renoir : $b impressionism and full-length painting / $c Colin B. Bailey”
And here’s an example from Voyager of a catalog raisonne of Andy Warhol’s record album covers with reproductions of each album cover and commentaries on them entered under the person who wrote the commentaries (LCCN 2014025267):
“100 1 $a Mareìchal, Paul,‡d1965-
245 10 $a Andy Warhol :‡bthe complete commissioned record covers, 1949-1987 : catalogue raisonneì /‡cPaul Mareìchal.
700 12 $a Warhol, Andy,‡d1928-1987.‡tAlbum covers.”
So, is it safe to say that the main entry for original works plus commentary depends more on the way responsibility is presented on the preferred source for art commentaries than it does for print commentaries?