Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T01:36:37.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dewey and the visual arts: some thoughts on the scheme and its application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Jill Cripps
Jill Cripps*
Affiliation:
Resources and Systems, University of the Arts London, Elephant & Castle, London SE1 6SB, UK
*
Email: j.cripps@arts.ac.uk; jillccripps@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

The Dewey Decimal Classification system, frequently used to arrange arts collections, has a number of commendable aspects but also some significant shortcomings. Evidence suggests that visual arts library users can further their creative ideas by browsing library shelves, and the author considers this should inform classification practice. Dewey, approached from a user perspective and applied with attention to the scheme’s potential, can provide a shelf order that promotes browsing. The common perception that Dewey is most suited to general library collections is perhaps not entirely justified. Within the visual arts, it possibly accommodates specialist resources rather better than is sometimes imagined, particularly with judicious adaptation. A number of modifications are easy enough to achieve and may be applied across a range of visual arts resources.

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , 2011 , pp. 5 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 2011

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. Dewey is the world’s most widely used library classification system, http://www.oclc.org/dewey/about/translations/default.htm.Google Scholar
2. Survey conducted via the ARLIS email discussion list between October 2000 and May 2001. Of the 24 UK art library respondents, almost 60 percent used DDC, of those that had reclassified more than 60 percent chose DDC. Approximately 23 percent used in-house schemes. Extrapolated from Currier, Sarah, ‘Classification schemes in art libraries in the United Kingdom,’ Art libraries journal 27, no. 1 (2002): 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. DDC classmarks: provided in records generated by Library of Congress, British Library and national bibliographies of many countries; present in many records available for download through databases such as OCLC and RLUK. Updates: provided monthly on the Dewey website; new editions published in print format approximately every seven years; the online version, WebDewey, is updated quarterly. Monthly updates detail minor revisions, amendments and corrections. For further detail see ‘Stay current with ongoing updates to DDC,’ http://www.oclc.org/dewey/updates/default.htm. New editions contain major revisions and incorporate monthly updates. DDC 22 (22nd edition) was published in 2003; at the time of writing DDC 23 was due for UK release in July 2011. For details see ‘DDC 23 is coming soon!’ http://www.oclc.org/info/ddc23/default.htm. WebDewey is available by subscription. For further information see ‘WebDewey 2.0: an overview,’ http://www.oclc.org/dewey/resources/tutorial/default.htm. Cataloguer training: courses are offered regularly in the UK by CILIP and other providers. OCLC online training materials are available free of charge and include a specific module for main class 700 – The Arts. See ‘Dewey training courses,’ http://www.oclc.org/dewey/resources/teachingsite/ddc22/default.htm. Current awareness: product details, news and links to current information are available from the Dewey website ‘Dewey Services,’ http://www.oclc.org/dewey/default.htm; more informal information is posted on ‘025.431: The Dewey blog,’ http://ddc.typepad.com. Google Scholar
4. ‘It took more than twenty years to relocate worms.’ Comment made during a paper read at the then Library Association’s Cataloguing and Indexing Group Conference, Blackpool, June 1996, in reference to revision of Life Sciences schedules, DDC 21.Google Scholar
5. WebDewey provides an area where subscribers can add notes to the online product, which in theory allows sections of earlier schedules to be noted. Broughton regards the loss of earlier schedules from online formats significant; commenting that large libraries don’t often reclassify when classification schemes are revised, except perhaps in limited areas. See Broughton, Vanda, Essential classification (London: Facet, 2004), 287–288.Google Scholar
6. Cole, Timothy W. and Foulonneau, Muriel, Using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2007), 189.Google Scholar
7. Clarke, Rachel, ‘Cataloguing and classification for art and design school libraries: challenges and considerations,’ in The handbook of art and design librarianship, ed. Gluibizzi, Amanda and Glassman, Paul (London: Facet, 2010), 113–129.Google Scholar
8. Hemmig, William S., ‘The information-seeking behavior of visual artists: a literature review,’ Journal of documentation 64, no. 3 (2008): 343–362;Google Scholar
Mason, Helen and Robinson, Lyn, ‘The information-related behaviour of emerging artists and designers: inspiration and guidance for new practitioners,’ Journal of documentation 67, no. 1 (2011): 159–180.Google Scholar
9. Wolff, Ulrika and Lundberg, Ingvar, ‘The prevalence of dyslexia among art students,’ Dyslexia 8, no. 1 (January/March 2002): 34–42;Google Scholar
Carson, Paula, ‘The creative dyslexic,’ Creative review 25, no. 1 (2005): 36–38.Google Scholar
10. Writings on the significance of browsing include the following and document information- seeking behaviours: Cowan, Sandra and Branigan, Thomas, ‘Informing visual poetry: information needs and sources of artists,’ Art documentation 23, no. 2 (2004): 14–20;Google Scholar
Frank, Polly, ‘Student artists in the library: an investigation of how they use general academic libraries for their creative needs,’ Journal of academic librarianship 25, no. 6 (1999): 445–455;Google Scholar
Littrell, L., ‘Artists: the neglected patrons?’ in Crossing the divide: proceedings of the tenth national conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, March 15-18, 2001, Denver, Colorado, ed. Thompson, Hugh A. (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2001), 291–294;Google Scholar
Stam, Deirdre C., ‘Artists and art libraries,’ Art libraries journal 20, no. 2 (1995): 21–24.Google Scholar
11. Shelf order follows DDC 22, the most recent Dewey edition available at the time of writing. The examples of adaptations provided here are drawn from those implemented at the London College of Communication, University of the Arts London (LCC).Google Scholar
12. 709.0408 was allocated to ‘Specific composite media’ of 20th-century art, in an update of 709 notations posted on OCLC website, October 2008. As the new notation ‘nearly fits’ graffiti, LCC is unlikely to alter the classmark. All new and changed entries will appear in DDC 23. The 709 revision provides changes not discussed here for reasons of article length.Google Scholar
13. A decision not to compromise was made at the LCC. Classmarks 709.040092 and 735.230092, rather than 709.04092 and 735.23092, were used for individual 20th-century artists and sculptors; with hindsight a mistake. Users and shelvers find 00 confusing, probably caused by the layout of spine labels. These have 3 characters to a line, 709./040/092 and one of the 0’s in 00 is often ‘seen’ as a single 0. Visual perception is important!Google Scholar