Knowledge Organisation in the do

concentrate on analyses of classification systems for literature and other materials on art in a historical and scholarly context. This means that I do not include the growing literature on knowledge representation and organisation of images.

In the literature under review I am especially interested in analyses of and reflections on historical factors influencing the conceptions of the classification systems, conceptual structures in the scholarly domain versus general classification theory and universal classification systems and related to the last mentioned the question of influences of scholarly paradigms in the domain on the conceptual structures of classification systems.

Analyses of the relationship between knowledge organisation and art studies in the 1970es focussed on new scholarly trends in art studies and new art forms, but first and foremost on the experienced needs of the users in the domain. Concerning the first mentioned the discussions focussed on how to restructure knowledge organisation systems, i.e. classification systems, in order to be able to represent new approaches to art studies. Concerning the users the emphasis was put on the character of the users’ needs considered in their professional contexts as art scholars, creative artists or others. Taking the new approaches and the experienced user needs in the domain into consideration the aim was an enhancement of the knowledge organisation systems. Bostick and Mandel underline that the classification systems depend on the conceptions and practices of the scholars and the users in the domain:

“Art research is characterized by an abundance of methodologies, and our classification systems can only be as systematic as our authors and our readers.” (Bostick & Mandel 1976, 1).

This means that the classification system for literature on the arts is understood in a domain context. What influence the classification system are on the one hand the publications and the use (including information seeking) in the domain. Clarke also expresses the importance of art scholarship for classification. In dealing with universal classification systems she calls the attention to a basic problem, namely a kind of contradiction between the classifiers and the art scholars:

“The two library schemes mentioned above (LCC and DDC) were not specifically developed by art historians but by classifiers, and they especially reflect the schemes for other disciplines in their respective systems. Therefore, the Art classification scheme in DDC is heavily dependent on Dewey’s general division of knowledge as reflected in his entire scheme; and the LC schemes for specific types of art such as printmaking, following the general scheme for Art which in turn is similar to the schemes for other disciplines.” (Clarke 1976, 3).

The core problem identified is that the overall structure of LCC and DDC as reflected in the construction of respectively the classes N and 700 in some aspects “contradict” the conceptual structures in the art domain. In the context of literature on art history there is no general contradiction between classifiers and art scholars due to the historical character of the (classical) art studies:

“Art historical research, like all historical research, is based on the coordinates of geography and chronology (space and time). These coordinates underlie the concept of “style” and determine the contexts of works of art. The classification scheme usually chooses either geography or chronology as an initial structure and modifies it with the other coordinate.” (Bostick & Mandel 1976, 2).

On the other hand Bostick and Mandel find the division by medium in the LCCS problematic because the users in general are interested in the works of an artist whether these works are in different media or not, and works on for instance futurism that comprises artistic expressions in a wider range of media. Such works on individual authors and periods, styles or artistic movements are separated by the classification schemes. The division according to media is also seen as problematic in the separation of Decorative Arts from Fine arts because some historical movements as for instance Rococo and Art Nouveau to a high degree have found their expressions in the Decorative Arts.

In the context of this article it is interesting that Bostick & Mandel point to the specific needs of a scholar of Iconography whose interests cross the special subjects section. ((Bostick & Mandel, 3). Iconography (or the iconograhic paradigm) is one of the classical paradigms in the domain (cf. 6.1). The two authors express that a user who is a scholar in Iconography has special needs specific for the paradigm to which he belongs. Schimansky (1976) emphasises a typical feature in art scholarship and in the humanities in general: the development of new concepts, the changes in the scholarly framework. Analysing the Metropolitan Museum of Art Library Classification Systems she writes that:

“New art terms make it imperative to replace the outdated terms in the classification, and recent art movements and techniques require the enlarging of some sections.” (Schimansky 1976, 5).

In the 1980es there seems to have been little focus on the aspects and problems I am dealing with.

An article of Molholt and Petersen (1993) refers to the special issue of ARLIS/NA and has its main focus on the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) as a bridging mechanism between the manifestations of visual arts and the different organisations (museums, libraries) that serve the viewers of art. To some extent this article represents a shift in focus from the organisation of documents on art to the representation and organisation of images in electronic image bases. But the article treats as well the construction of this thesaurus and its hermeneutic horizon. The AAT “represents a view of the world, an aggregate view of experts, but a view nonetheless.” (Molholt & Petersen 1993, 31). From the experience that there has been no need for changing the original structure of the AAT during a decade they conclude that: “This may suggest that there is a commonly agreed way, for purposes of description, to talk/think about visual art, a pathway if you will.” (Molholt & Petersen 1993, 32). The implicit idea seems to be that the different groups of art scholars who have contributed to the thesaurus have an integrated common conception of the scholarly domain of the art studies.

Among many other aspects of art librarianship Wyngaard (1993) deals with classification. She analyses some differences and similarities between the DDC and the LCC at a general level. One aspect analysed is the implicit concept of art as it can be seen in the main classes 700 and N. DDC distinguishes between Useful Arts (600) and Fine Arts (700). LCC includes the majority of the visual arts in class N while it “excludes” aesthetics from this class. Another aspect is the criteria for the major divisions. Both classification systems describe the class painting by subject (of the painting such as portrait), time period, technique, style, nationality and a combination of these. (Wyngaard 1993, 9-10). Her analysis does not go into further details with this.

Roberto Ferrari (1999) analyses and compares the DDC and the LCC systems mutually and with four alternate classification systems developed by special art and design libraries. The analysis focuses on the functional and pragmatic aspects of the use of these classification systems in art libraries. That both the DDC and the LCC are to general for special art libraries has caused the need for alternate systems. Ferrari points to the historical origin of universal classifications systems and the four alternate classification systems for art and design libraries in his explanation of some features: Medium versus history/ethnicity

“One must keep in mind that art movements such as “Renaissance” and “Rococo” were terms being used for the first time in the late-nineteenth century academe. Hence for early classification systems such as DDC, LCC, and the first of the three alternate classifications systems discussed here (the Toledo Museum of Art Library Classification system), the focus was on medium.” (Ferrari 1999, 91).

Ferrari explains historically why the main division of the classes on art in the DDC and the LCC is by media and not by time (movements, style). I use Ferrari and Molholt and Petersen (1993) as a starting point for a presentation of my view on general and universal systems of knowledge organisation that I see as products or “reflections” of historically developed concepts and conceptual structures. Concepts from different historical periods – and different points of view - are woven together in classification schemes and other systems of knowledge organisation. In this sense classification schemes are products of ‘bricolage’ processes in which they have been marked by certain worldviews, conceptions from different stages in the history of the art institution and different scholarly or scientific paradigms.

According to Pauline Rafferty, and relevant to the problem stated by Clarke, the worldview inherent in general and universal classification systems can be analysed at the level of the main classes and the general principles. Pauline Rafferty writes:

“Method, order and objectivity, which carry with them the connotations of ‘science’, are achieved in the general library classification scheme through the rational structures and conventions of Main Classes which assert forms of logical taxonomy, and through artificially constructed symbols which bear with them connotations of algebraic languages. These taxonomies are the product of rational, and often pragmatic and functionalist worldviews.” (Rafferty 2001, 181).

From an analytical point of view I distinguish between the worldviews and paradigms that are ‘reflected’ in the universal classification systems and the taxonomies as described by Pauline Rafferty in the quotation above. In fact there is a kind of a contradiction between the ‘bricolage’ of worldviews and paradigms on the one side and the rational worldviews structuring the formal side of the taxonomy on the other side. The apparently logical taxonomies are constructed on the basis of rather heterogeneous conceptual structures that are results of a ‘bricolage’ processes.

3. The art institution and the scholarly domain of art studies

The concept of the art institution comprises on the one side the whole range of persons (artists, art critics, art historians etc.), their activities (creating art, organizing expositions etc.) and the special institutions in which these activities are taking place (academies of art, art museums, art editorials etc.), and on the other side the (historically determined and competing) social and aesthetical values underlying and ‘governing’ these activities.

The scholarly domain of art studies is an integrating part of the art institution. This means that this domain should be analysed both in the context of the art institution and as a scholarly domain. In this analysis of knowledge organization dealing with art I will draw on both of these interrelated contexts. The context of the art institution is treated rather briefly, partly as a historical sketch, partly as a description of art exhibitions as a level of knowledge organisation.

In the analysis of knowledge organisation in the context of the scholarly domain of art studies I take my starting point in Hjørland (2002) where he states that a domain analysis should always include three or four of the eleven approaches he presents in the article. Without going in detail with these approaches I have chosen to concentrate on a) historical studies of the domain (the historical study of categories, concepts, contexts and knowledge organisation, b) analysis of discourses, symbol systems and ‘technical language’, (I consider paradigms to be essential parts of the discourses), and to a lesser extent c) document and genre analyses (histories of art), and d) a few examples of indexing. A special emphasis is put on the incongruity between the ‘traditional’ and the ‘new’ art history.

The special institutions in which works of art are exhibited are integrating parts of the art institution. In the exhibitions works of art are presented and situated in contexts that means that the art exhibition is a kind of knowledge organisation. This knowledge organisation takes place in an institutional practice. I will call this the institutional level of knowledge organisation. Besides this level there can be distinguished between two levels in the scholarly domain of art: a level of presentation of the subject matter in publications on art and the level of knowledge organisation as it is normally understood in LIS.

In the context of this article I concentrate on exhibitions in, or arranged by, art museums. Other types of exhibitions as for instance sales exhibitions are arranged according to other criteria than those based on art scholarship. In general the physical and virtual exhibitions of the permanent collections in the art museums are arranged in more traditional ways. On the other hand a lot of experiments with the organisation and presentation of art works has taken place in the field of temporary exhibitions.

My general assumption is that historically determined discourses on art pervade all three levels of knowledge organisation. New discourses are first seen in exhibition practices of temporary exhibitions and in primary document types. Later on these discourses ‘penetrate’ the tertiary documents and the knowledge representation systems. Through there has been a profound theoretical discussion and a radical change in art scholarship during the last three decades, most popular documents on art are still conceived according to the ‘natural’ understanding of art with focus on individual artist treated in a biographical and stylistic context. This ‘natural’ understanding of the art is the combined product of pre-paradigmatic ideas from the Renaissance and the stylistic paradigm.

The social and institutional practices of exhibiting works of art, the codes of presentation in different documents types and the classification systems are mutually interrelated and marked by social values, worldviews, scholarly paradigms and pre-paradigms. Some examples are given in 6.1-6.2 and 6.4.

Art exhibitions

Document types Classification systems

5. A brief historical sketch of some aspects of the art institution and of some conceptions of art relevant to knowledge organisation

Though the modern concept of art is defined by Baumgarten and Kant in the Age of Enlightenment it is relevant to go back to the Renaissance in order to trace some conceptions and document types that are still important today. It is generally agreed that one of the pioneers of art history and art criticism is Giorgio Vasari whose ‘Lives of the Painters’ (Le vite, 1550-68) introduces a new era. In ‘Lives of the Painters’ there are two basic conceptions. One is the biographical treatment of the individual artist the other is the idea of the cycle of cultural ages. Vasari focussed on the genius and the achievement of the individual. The basic narrative structure in these ‘vite’ is the story of the artist’s life (as indicated in the title) related to the artist’s works of art. Today the most common document types in the art domain treat individual artists (biographies, monographs). According to the idea of the cycle the Renaissance was a revival of the antiquity and a new peak in the history of culture. In other words: Vasari saw the High Renaissance as superior to antiquity. This conception of the Renaissance as the period of highest excellence is still found in standard books on art history and in some classification schemes where it is ‘reflected’ in the vast hierarchy of subdivisions.

In 1664 the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in Paris became a centralised institution that developed a doctrine for the theory and practice of painting. One central element in this doctrine was the hierarchy of motives. The most valuable motive was the human being, i.e. biblical and mythological motives, next to that in importance came the portrait followed by the landscape, living animals and at the bottom of the hierarchy still life was placed. This taxonomy, in fact an axiology, as well as a number of conceptual distinctions can be traced in the ‘bricolages’ of today’s classification schemes. Among those conceptual distinctions deriving from pre-paradigmatic studies of art are drawing versus colour, the different styles and schools of painting (later developed by the stylistic paradigm), the idea of connoisseurship, and Roger de Piles’ system for valuation of paintings consisting of four categories: composition, design, colouring and expression.

The history of knowledge organisation from the Renaissance and onwards shows how the arts and the study of art have been conceived in a universal knowledge context. In ‘The Advancement of Learning’ (1605) Francis Bacon was not especially aware of the visual arts. Bacon’s atlas of the human learning is based on the division of man’s understanding:

“The parts of human learning have reference to the three parts of man’s understanding, which is the seat of learning: history to his memory, poesy to his imagination, and philosophy to his reason.” (Bacon 1965, 69).

In the sections on history the history of visual art (in the modern sense) is not mentioned. And in his treatment of ‘poesy’ Bacon writes that “Poesy is a part of learning in measure of words…” (Bacon 1965, 82). Some art forms are categorised under mixed mathematics: music and architecture.

It is well known that d’Alembert based his system of human knowledge in the “Preliminary discourse to the encyclopedia of Diderot” (originally published 1751) on a revised version of Bacon’s atlas. With Locke’s theory of knowledge as the foundation d’Alembert revised the order of the three parts of human learning. Philosophical notions are “formed by the combination of primitive ideas” (d’Alembert 1995, 36). Poetry is another kind of “reflective knowledge”:

“It consists of the ideas which we create for ourselves by imagining and putting together beings similar to those which are the object of our direct ideas.” (d’Alembert 1995, 37).

From d’Alembert’s point of view poetry presupposes a more advanced mental operation than philosophy. And this is the reason why d’Alembert revises Bacon’s order of the faculties of human understanding and the system of human knowledge: history, philosophy and poetry. Concerning the arts there is a radical difference between Bacon and d’Alembert. D’Alembert’s category of poetry brings together literary kinds/genres, music, architecture, painting, sculpture and engraving. The subdivision of this category is based on whether the form of art ‘speaks’ to the senses, to the imagination or to both.

“Painting and Sculpture ought to be placed at the head of that knowledge which consists of imitation, because it is in those arts above all that imitation best approximates the objects represented and speaks most directly to the senses. Architecture, that art which is born of necessity and perfected by luxury, can be added to those two. (…) Poetry, which comes after Painting and Sculpture, and which imitates merely by means of words disposed according to a harmony agreeable to the ear, speaks to the imagination rather than to the senses. (…) Finally, music, which speaks simultaneously to the imagination and to the senses, holds the last place in the order of imitation – (…)” (d’Alembert 1995, 37-38).

D’Alembert’s analysis and subdivision of the category of poetry is essential to the categorisation of the arts in modern classification systems from Dewey and onwards.

Vasari’s Renaissance conception of the historical cycle was radically changed in the Age of Enlightenment. In the “Preliminary discourse to the encyclopedia of Diderot” the second part is an analysis of “the progress of the mind” from the Renaissance to d’Alembert’s age, the Age of Enlightenment, and this means that the idea of the cycle was substituted by the notion of evolution.

In the in years following the revolution in 1789 France had a key position in the development of modern museums. The intension was to save and communicate the ‘monuments’ of the arts, the science and the reason. When the Louvre opened as an art museum for the people in 1793 the exhibition was organised according to chronological and geographical – instead of aesthetic - principles. These new principles of organisation were expressions of the ideas of evolutionism and nationalism. The aim was to give the visitors an image of the progressive grandeur of the culture and especially of the national culture. These principles have since been the most influential not only in museums exhibitions but also in historical treatments of the arts, and in classification systems.

At the end of the Age of Enlightenment some of the main principles relevant to knowledge organisation in the art institution were on the one hand the idea that the art forms belong to the same category, the division of the art forms according to epistemological principles, the idea of evolution and the idea of nationalism. Melvil Dewey used these principles in the first edition of his Classification and Subject Index. Dewey incorporates new art forms (Landscape Gardening, Photography and Amusements) but the basic division corresponds with d’Alembert’s. Dewey placed Literature in separate class following Fine Arts but this was in accordance with the principles used by d’Alembert. Dewey uses divisions in historical epochs (ancient and oriental, medieval and modern) and in national schools of painting (Flemish and Dutch schools, French, Italian), and Literature is basically divided according to nations and languages. Besides these principles inherited from the Age of Enlightenment some earlier principles and concepts are used by Dewey as for instance Color (752), Portrait (757), Landscape (758) and Biography of fine arts (927). In other words: Dewey’s epoch making “Classification and Subject Index” is constructed as a ‘bricolage’ system on the basis of concepts and categories belonging to different historical epochs.

6. Paradigms in art history and art scholarship

The first edition of Dewey’s Classification and Subject Index was first and foremost marked by pre-paradigmatic studies of the arts and of philosophical theory of knowledge organisation including Bacon and d’Alembert. (Muñiz, 2003).

The ‘traditional’ art history paradigms were developed from the late nineteenth century to the sixties of the twentieth century. These paradigms can analytically be divided in two main traditions.

The first paradigm is developed within the tradition of cultural history going back to the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt (1818-97). Burckhardt aimed at describing the panorama of a whole age and “within this panorama he set the visual arts at or near the centre of the defining characteristics of an age.” (Fernie, 1995, 14). The originally German scholar Erwin Panofsky created his iconographical paradigm in the tradition of cultural history. The iconographic analysis (which included a stylistic analysis) aims at the interpretation of the intrinsic and symbolical meaning of images. The interpretation of this intrinsic meaning is based on the study of contemporary philosophy and literature. For instance Poussin’s painting ‘Et in Arcadio ego’ is interpreted as an expression of the idea of death around 1640. The focus of the iconographic paradigm is allegorical and symbolic meaning. Panofsky studied the Renaissance and the Baroque period. Works of art from these periods have a privileged status for the scholars belonging to this paradigm. In general the art-historical tradition for cultural history (E.H. Gombrich) and iconography have the high culture in focus.

The research object of the iconographic paradigm is the meaning of the works of art. In general the meaning is interpreted in the cultural context of the work. It means the intertextuality of the works of art includes other cultural expressions.

6.1.1 The iconographical paradigm and the three ‘levels’ of knowledge organisation

Some recent exhibitions at Statens Museum for Kunst (The Danish National Gallery) have been organised according to themes. It is the case in the temporary exhibition ‘The avant-garde in Danish and European Art 1909-1919’. The ‘Introduction’ states:

‘This exhibition does not aim to go into the specifics on how the works belong under the headings of Futurism, Cubism, or Expressionism. Instead, it wishes to draw attention to how many artists represented address the same subjects – subjects which are all associated with modern life and existence.’ (The avant-garde, 2002, 7).

In this exhibition as well as in “Symbolism in Danish and European painting 1870-1910” the exposed works of art are presented in a cultural context and interpreted in the exhibition catalogues and guides. The thematic principle is overriding. In “Symbolism in Danish and European painting 1870-1910” there are five themes: The beauty and the Death, The Greatness of Man and Nature, Silence till the Death, Eros and Melancholy, and The Prophets of Beauty. The painter’s nationality, the art form and the date of the exhibited works are subordinated to the themes. “The avant-garde” and “Symbolism in Danish and European painting 1870-1910” are in a way the iconographical paradigm put into exhibition practice.

In the monograph by Læssøe (2000) the main structure of the presentation is historical but each of the seven chapters contains iconographic interpretations of works by individual artists. These interpretations draw on literary, philosophical, pictorial, biographical and historical sources. To a certain extent Læssøe (2000) represents the iconographical paradigm. But he goes one step beyond it because the historical reception of the works of art is an essential aspect of the analyses. Anyway the important thing is that the themes and the interpretations of the works are the organising principles.

In classification systems, bibliographies, and thesauri we do not usually find themes and iconographic interpretations at the higher levels in the taxonomies. But before making a brief analysis of this aspect the conceptions of art and some general characteristics of the art classes in the Library of Congress Classification System (LCC) and the Dewey Decimal Classification System (DDC) are presented.

Class N in The Library of Congress Classification System covers the visual arts with the exclusion of some decorative art forms as for instance ceramics and photography and with the exclusion of some aspects of primitive art and folk art. It means that the underlying understanding of art in the LCC is closer to the ‘traditional paradigms’ than the DDC. In the class ‘visual arts’ the LCC has almost no features that can be related to the iconographical paradigm. In the class ND, painting, the main divisions are General, History, Study and teaching, General Works, Special Subjects, Techniques and materials, Examination and conservation of painting, Watercolor painting, Mural painting, and Illumination of manuscripts and books. The subclass Special subjects (1288-1460) is divided according to the late Renaissance hierarchy of motives: Human figure, Portraits, Landscape Painting, Marine painting, Animals, Birds, Sports. Hunting, fishing, Still life, Flowers. Fruit. Trees, and Other subjects. The point of view of this subdivision is ‘positivistic’ without marked linguistic references to the terminology of the iconographical paradigm.

Class 700 (The arts. Fine and decorative arts) in DDC does not conceive of the arts in accordance with the ‘traditional’ paradigms in art history in the way that the class is not limited to a body of works that is considered to be of great cultural importance and aesthetic value. Instead the class comprises a wide range of fine and decorative arts. The understanding underlying the class does not distinguish between art and craft.

In class 700 the DDC has incorporated the terminology of the iconographical paradigm in some subclasses as for instance 704.9 Iconography and collections of writings, and in the classes 753-758 Specific subjects (Iconography) comprising Abstraction, symbolism, allegory, mythology, legend, and Religion and religious symbolism. At a lower level the terminology of the iconographical paradigm forms an integral part of the ‘bricolage’ of the DDC.

Though I am not going to make an analysis of the UDC I will point out that class 7.04 covers “Subjects for artistic representation. Iconography. Iconology”. The subdivision of this class combines terminology from the iconographic paradigm with categories of motives (subjects).

The stylistic paradigm is established around 1870 and later on developed by Heinrich Wölfflin (1864-1945). Like the presentation of the other paradigms this presentation treats the stylistic paradigm as an “Idealtypus” in Max Weber’s sense. It means that the presentation cultivates the typical features of the paradigms without discussion to what extent scholarly works belonging to the paradigm deal with interpretations of the works of art.

Wölfflin “considered that laws governed the ways in which forms changed through time, (…)”, (Fernie, 1995, 15). Based on stylistic characteristics (for instance linear versus painterly and plane versus recession) Wölfflin grouped works into related categories. This meant that the analysis of style became the basic and defining method of the stylistic paradigm in art history and the object was the works of art belonging to high culture. In a more specific sense the object of the stylistic paradigm is the formal aspect of the work of art (style, composition, way of painting and the like), the stylistic features. The aim of the stylistic analysis is to describe, categorize, compare and systematise these stylistic features in order determine a sequence of historical styles. It means that the overriding principle in knowledge organisation – whether in art exhibitions, art histories or systems of knowledge organisation – is the historical sequence of styles. As a consequence of the focus on styles the intertextuality is limited to works of art, i.e. the history of art is conceived of as an autonomous history. The content analysis, i.e. the meaning of the works of art is beyond the horizon of this paradigm. The way works of art are analysed and organised in taxonomies is similar to Linné’s principles in “Systema Naturae” in which the forms of the nature in the animal kingdom, the vegetable kingdom and the mineral kingdom are analysed systematically and grouped in families, species and so on. (Paludan-Müller).

6.2.1 The stylistic paradigm and the three ‘levels’ of knowledge organisation

The traditional way of organising exhibitions in art museums follows the principles of the Louvre exhibition in 1793 as they are developed by the stylistic paradigm. The works of art are presented in a historical sequence where style follows style generally within a regional or national context. The exhibition of the permanent collection at the Danish National Gallery, Statens Museum for Kunst, is an example of this.

Janson (1995) treats the history of art in line with the principles of the stylistic paradigm. With focus on Western art Janson traces the roots of Western art back prehistoric times and follows the evolution of the art forms in ancient Egypt, ancient Near East, classical Greece and so on. The chapters covering the period from 1050 to around 1900 have stylistic terms in the titles and some of the structural principles are divisions in art forms and nation or regions.

The chapters on the twentieth century do not use the stylistic terms but names of historical periods: Before World War I, Between the Wars, Since World War II as subdivisions under the main division in art forms (painting, sculpture, architecture, photography). The individual chapters are subdivided in styles and ‘isms’. Some structural elements in the part treating twentieth century painting before World War illustrate this.

The taxonomy in Janson (1995) combines historical periods, styles, ‘isms’, art forms, individual artists, regions, and nations.

In the DDC the history of the arts (for instance in class 709: historical and geographic treatment in general, and in class 759: historical and geographic treatment in general in painting) is divided according to centuries, nations and geographical areas like it is in the LCC. But the difference between these two classification systems is that the DDC uses the terminology of the stylistic paradigm as a part of the taxonomic structure while the LCC uses these terms in the alphabetical subdivisions of the basic taxonomy based on centuries. Using the19^th century as an example this can be illustrated. In DDC class 759.01 has the heading: 19^th century, 1800-1900. The description is as follows:

“Including classical revival, romanticism, naturalism, impressionism, luminism, pleinairism, neo-impressionism, pointillism, divisionism, postimpressionism.” (Dewey, 1971, 296).

In the LCC the class ND 190-192 covers the painting of the 19^th century, and ND 192.A-Z the special aspects and movements of the century, for instance Impressionist painting and Romantic painting. In the LCC the principle of subdivision – or the taxonomy at the level analysed – is alphabetic (though this principle is not consequently used, an exception is medieval painting). On the contrary the DDC uses the taxonomy of the stylistic paradigm, i.e. the historical sequence of styles in the same way as Janson’s “History of art”.

In the LCC the subclass on the history of art (ND 49-813) is based on a combination of terms from general history (ancient, medieval, and modern with some subdivisions as for instance early Christian and Renaissance) and centuries.

In class 7: “The arts. Recreation. Entertainment. Sport” the UDC has subdivisions (7.03) in which the terminology of the stylistic paradigm is consequently used for the artistic periods, phases, schools, stiles and influences from the medieval period to the “Transition between Expressionism and abstract art”. (Universal Decimal Classification, 1993, 853). This means that the UDC is far more based on the stylistic paradigm than the DDC and the LCC.

The conclusion concerning the influence of the iconographical and the stylistic paradigms on the main classes of art in the taxonomies of the two classification systems is that none of these paradigms forms an integrating in the taxonomy of the LCC, while both paradigms to a certain degree are integrated terminologically in the DDC. In the taxonomies of both classification systems crucial parts are based on pre-paradigmatic concepts and conceptions of art studies (as well as on document types, technical procedures, materials and general geographical and historical divisions).

The opposite is the case with the UDC in which essential parts of the taxonomy on art are based on the two “traditional” paradigms. This leads to the conclusion that the UDC taxonomy has a more scholarly foundation than the DDC and the LLC.

These two ‘traditional’ art history paradigms have been criticized during the last three decades for a number of reasons. Among these reasons is that the continuity of art is taken for granted, a continuity starting in ancient Greece, including the visual use of classical myths, continuing with the narratives and symbols of Christianity and going up till contemporary art. The two paradigms are as well criticized for cultivating a canon of art and for defining art as fine art meaning a body of works considered to be of great cultural importance and aesthetic value. The body of fine art consists of painting, drawing and sculpture (plus architecture and photography). Other characteristics of the ‘traditional’ paradigms are that they understand the stylistic features and the meanings of works of art and art history as fixed structures, or to put it another way: they have an essentialist conception of art.

A third paradigm in – or approach to - art history is materialistic and is generally known as the social history of art. This paradigm was developed in the 1940s and 1950s by among others Arnold Hauser (1892-1978). The paradigm is based on “the Marxist thesis that the economic base conditions the cultural superstructure and that as a result styles vary according to the character of the dominant class”. (Fernie, 1995, 18). Within this paradigm the social functions of art and the sociology of art are studied. In comparison with the two (main) ‘traditional’ paradigms the materialistic approach has had rather limited influence on art scholarship in general. In general the materialist paradigm draws on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ writings on literature and art though the basic ideas have been interpreted differently in Eastern and Western Europe up till the beginning of the nineties. The works of art are considered as integrated elements in the historical and social context. It means that the materialist conception of art is opposed to the general Western idea of the autonomous art. The materialist paradigm aims at analysing the meaning and the function of art in the context of material, social, political and ideological structures (at the time when the works of art were created). This paradigm does not understand the evolution of the art as being continuous. Changes in the power and class structure cause changes in and ruptures with the artistic tradition.

6.4.1 The materialistic paradigm and the three ‘levels’ of knowledge organisation

The materialistic paradigm is not often used as a basis for organising art exhibitions in the Western World. One of the reasons is that the social conception of art is contrary to art understood as autonomous. An exhibition at Randers Kunstmuseum (a provincial Danish art museum) in the 1980s used a painting by the Danish artist Wenzel Tornøe as the focal point. This painting ‘Syerske’ shows a sewing machinist sitting utterly tired and almost sleeping at her sewing machine. The other images exhibited and the text accompanying the exhibition created a social and historical context in which the painting was interpreted as a critique of the female working conditions around year1900.

Arnold Hauser’s “The Social History of Art” covers the history of art forms including literary genres from prehistoric times to “the film age”. The concept of art is more comprehensive than the one used by Janson. Volume two has the subtitle “Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque” and volume three has the subtitle “Rococo, Classicism and Romanticism”. These subtitles indicate that Hauser uses the terminology of the “traditional’ paradigms. But Hauser’s context is radically different from the contexts of the iconographic and the stylistic paradigm. The character of the context can be shown with some excerpts from the contents of volume three.

In Hauser (1962) the art is understood in a context that combines changes in economic, power and class structure, altering worldviews, new strata of the public, the political use of art and interpretations of individual artists as exponents of (new) ideas, social standpoints and artistic qualities. It is emphasised that the art and the different art forms have social functions and that they have to be treated in a social context because they are integrating parts of the society.

In the Soviet universal classification system, BBK, Bibliothekarisch-bibliographische Klassifikation, the art studies are placed in class Shch: Fine arts, art scholarship (Šč: Kunst. Kunstwissenschaft). The basic taxonomy of the BBK is based on the Marxist conception of nature, society and culture, including the thesis that the economic base conditions the cultural superstructure of the society.

While the main taxonomies in two North American systems can be interpreted as expressions of philosophical idealism the BBK taxonomy is materialistic. In the DDC and in the LCC the underlying conception of the art is the idea of an autonomous art sphere - meaning among other things that the art does not have social or pedagogical functions. In the BBK the opposite is the case and the art is conceived of as a field of societal practice.

The main class Shch: Fine arts, art scholarship comprises (Shch 03-38): History of the art, Visual art, Architecture, Applied art, Sculpture, Painting, Graphic art, Artistic photography, Music and the performing arts, Music, Dance, Theatre, Mass arrangements and popular festivals, Circus, ‘Shows’, and Artistic radio and television emissions. One feature that distinguishes the BBK from the DDC and the LCC is the emphasis put on artistic mass manifestations. Another feature is the aesthetic criterion applied to photography, radio and television emissions.

Selected subclasses in Shch 10 visual art that are presented in the figure below can illustrate the character of the taxonomy:

The figure above shows the bias of the point of departure. The standards of art scholarship are derived from the classical writings and the Marxist theory in the domain. Besides that the methodological, institutional, and historical aspects of art scholarship and art criticism are important. The periods used in the classes on the general history of the visual arts are based on the development of the social formations from the “Urgesellschaft” to the communist era after the October Revolution. Terms from the “traditional” paradigms are logically not used. The terms “Early Renaissance” and “High Renaissance” do not have the same meanings as in the contexts of the “traditional” paradigms. Following the basic conception there are no classes for individual artists. In short the discourse of the BBK differs fundamentally from the discourses of DDC and LCC. In the BBK the bias is evident to a “Western” eye. But it is more difficult for the same “Western” eye to notice the biases of for instance the DDC and the LCC because their basic points of view seem “natural”, they are integrated parts of our intellectual and conceptual horizon.

7. Changes in the domain of art history and art scholarship

In the early 1970s ‘new’ art historians with different theoretic orientations started criticizing the ‘traditional’ paradigms for a number of reasons: the narrowness of the way in which art was defined and studied, the focus on individual artists, the limited scope of methods (analysis of style og iconography) and the concentration on the canonical works of art. In some ways these ‘new’ art historians were inspired by the social history of art in their “new” art historical practice. In general they conceive of the art in a broader social context including power structures, they study the relations between artists and public, and they do not consider the structures of meaning to be fixed.

“(…) the ‘new’ art history represents a dramatically wider field of enquiry involving new methodologies, although ‘old’ art history is still pursued by some academics. The ‘new’ art history employs an interdisciplinary approach which embraces materials far beyond ‘traditional’ art historical sources, and so information has to be sought outside the art library (…)” (Korenic, 1997, 12).

From the librarian’s point of view the interdisciplinary and the sources for art scholarship are important challenges. And the same goes for knowledge organisation. With the decreasing importance of the “old” art history and with the biased point of view in the BBK the taxonomies on art in the “classical” classification systems are out of key with the recent scholarship of the “new” art history. When the object of art studies is redefined in a new interdisciplinary and more complex context the basic conceptual structures - derived from pre-paradigmatic conceptions and to some extent from the “traditional” paradigms – are inadequate. Of course the problems can be handled by the use of faceted classification and refinement of subclasses, but the fundamental problems cannot be solved in a (theoretically) satisfying way by the use of the “classical” classification systems. This is – of course – a part of the background for the development of thesauri.

One of the basic ideas of the semiotic approach is that each reading of a text or a picture is a re-creating of it, a construction of meaning in an ongoing process. An example is ‘Reading Rembrandt’ by Mieke Bal (1991). Bal does not see ‘Rembrandt’ as an individual painter but as a ongoing ‘semiotic construction’. In our interpretation of paintings or etchings by Rembrandt we are not able to “isolate” the work of art from all the interpretations. In other words the oeuvre of Rembrandt is inscribed in a textual universe of ongoing interpretations. In another monograph by Mieke Bal “Quoting Caravaggio” she analyses the “dialogue” between contemporary “neo-Baroque” artist and Caravaggio. In this intertextual “dialogue” new meanings are created.

The gender historical approach started with a critique of the exclusion of female artists from the canons of art. In “The obstacle race : the fortunes of women painters and their work”. Germaine Greer analysed the social conditions of the women and the functions and values of the art institution that generally caused the exclusion of female artist. The approach based on psychoanalysis aims at exploring the meaning of a picture as being different from what is consciously expressed or stated by the artist. The object shifts from the individual artist to – for instance – the cultural background. Another art scholar, Norman Bryson, has interpreted some paintings by Géricault in the context of the history of masculinity. To a certain extent these interpretations can be seen as inspired by materialistic paradigm and as a continuation and refinement of Arnold Hauser’s work.

The ‘new’ art history is inspired from developments and theories in other domains as for instance history, literature and philosophy. New ways of organising exhibitions in art museums and art galleries are somehow related to the shift in orientation from the ‘traditional’ to the ‘new’ art history. As mentioned is the ‘traditional’ exhibition arranged according to periods in the history of art, styles, artistic movements, regions and nations. The ‘new’ ways of exhibiting works of art include for instance presentations of paintings belonging to different styles and epochs in order to create dialogues and inter-textual relations among these. Generally speaking the works of art are removed from the ‘fixed’ context of ‘traditional’ art history and presented in an ‘open’ context where the meaning of the work is not given in advance, but is derived from the new exhibition context.

The LCC has a subclass, 1158.A-Z, for Painting related to other subjects, this subclass includes for instance psychoanalysis and semiotics. In the DDC the class 701: “Philosophy and theory” gathers “appreciative aspects” (psychology, theory etc.) and “inherent features” (composition, color, form, style etc.). The “appreciative” aspects can be expanded with new theories.

The Art & Architecture Thesaurus is – as it is presented – “a structured vocabulary of around 125,000 terms, scope notes, and other information for describing fine art, architecture, decorative arts, archival materials and material culture.” (Getty Research Institute, 2003). As it is indicated in the presentation the Art & Architecture Thesaurus covers far more than the classes on art in the universal classification systems. Though this is evident - given the fact the art classes in the universal classification systems have the whole systems as contexts – it is should be emphasised that the coverage seems to be in accordance with the interdisciplinary approaches of the “new” art history “which embraces materials far beyond ‘traditional’ art historical sources.” (Korenic, 1997, 12).

The facets in the Art & Architecture Thesaurus are identified and organised “especially to reflect how a work of art is described.” (Molholt & Petersen 1993, 32).

“The facets of the AAT are organized to proceed from the most abstract concepts through the style or period of the work, the role of creators, the processes and techniques used to fabricate works, the materials the materials with which they are made, to the names of the objects themselves – the most concrete elements of the description. Each facet contains one ore more hierarchies which are arrangements of terms in broader and narrower relationships.” (Molholt & Petersen 1993, 32).

The seven facets reflecting seven perspectives on the description of a work of art are:

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES FACET
Hierarchies: Attributes and Properties , Conditions and Effects , Design Elements , Color

ACTIVITIES FACET
Hierarchies: Disciplines , Functions , Events , Physical Activities , Processes and Techniques

OBJECTS FACET
Hierarchies: Object Groupings and Systems , Object Genres , Components

“This facet contains abstract concepts and phenomena that relate to the study and execution of a wide range of human thought and activity, including architecture and art in all media, as well as related disciplines. Also covered here are theoretical and critical concerns, ideologies, attitudes, and social or cultural movements (e.g., beauty, balance, connoisseurship, metaphor, freedom, socialism).” (Getty Research Institute, 2003)

The examples in brackets point to the “bricolage” character of the facet. In order to cover the wide range of historical and contemporary concepts the taxonomy of the facet has heterogeneous. Balance is a concept at least going back to Roger de Piles’ “Balance de peintres” (1708), connoisseurship is a concept developed in the Renaissance, freedom and socialism are rather modern concepts etc. The interdisciplinary approaches to the study of art include for instance: linguistics and related disciplines, museology, science, philosophy, women’s studies, political science, communications, economics, and ethnic studies. In other words concepts from the humanities, the social sciences and science are integrated in the thesaurus. One important aspect of this it that it is possible to include and emphasise the theoretical point of view and the scholarly paradigm in the knowledge representation. This can be illustrated with an example. Griselda Pollock’s monograph “Differencing the canon : feminist desire and the writing of art histories” (1999) is represented with the terms: feminism and art, woman art historians, psychology, psychoanalysis and feminism. The last terms indicate in a way Griselda Pollock’s approach or paradigm. She is one of the “new” art historians like Mieke Bal. Bal’s monograph “Reading “Rembrandt” : beyond the word-image opposition” (1991) is represented with the terms: Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, 1606-1669 – Criticism and interpretation, Woman in art, Ut pictora poesis (Aesthetics), Art and literature. The problem in this representation is that Bal’s specific theoretical approach is missing. The general conclusion so far is that the associated concepts facet in Art & Architecture Thesaurus to a certain degree is able to cope with the “new” art history. But it is only to a certain degree.

As a whole Art & Architecture Thesaurus is a very comprehensive work of “bricolage” that joins concepts from almost all historical phases of the study of art and architecture, concepts from interdisciplinary studies of the domain and concepts from both “traditional” and “new” art history. For instance the facet Styles and periods is based on the scholarship of the stylistic paradigm. The “polyhierarchical” structure of the Art & Architecture Thesaurus is an advantage in comparison with the “classical” hierarchical classification systems. On the other hand it should be emphasised that the Art & Architecture Thesaurus is an eclectic work in which the basic structure of facets and hierarchies is constructed on the principles of rationality, order and objectivity in the same way as in (Western) universal classification systems. There are two problems in this. The first is that both rationality and objectivity are apparent. Nor the art institution as a social and cultural field neither the scholarly domain of art studies is rational. The other and related problem is that the work of art is conceived of as an object that can be put in different contexts without changing meaning. In other words there seems to be a kind of an “additive” structural thinking in the thesaurus. And this “additive” structural conception is the reason why for instance Bal’s specific theoretical approach is not adequately represented.

Conclusion

The aim of this article was to analyse some aspects of knowledge organisation in the domain of the arts, especially visual art. From the rather brief analysis I can draw some conclusions. The analysis indicates that different socially and historically embedded discourses on art, including pre-paradigmatic studies and scholarly paradigms pervade knowledge organisation in the art institution at three levels. These three levels are ‘articulated’ in respectively: 1.Art exhibitions, 2. Primary and tertiary document types (printed, audio-visual, and multimedia documents), and 3. Classification systems, bibliographies, thesauri (and other secondary document types.) Concerning the general discourse in which art is understood there is a marked (ideological) difference between the Soviet BBK on the one side and the Western classification systems (DDC, LCC and UDC) on the other side. Though the universal classification systems as such are constructed on the basis of (formal) rational and logical structures the analyses of the art classes show that the substantial “layers” “beneath” the rational structures are constructed as “bricolage” works. The systems analysed, including the sketched analysis of UDC, show that there are significant differences among the four systems both regarding the understanding of art (which is a part of the discourse) and regarding the concepts of the “bricolage” work. The LCC system is the one that to the less extend includes concepts from the “traditional” paradigms, the iconographic and the stylistic paradigms. Or to put it another way: it is a system in which scholarly conceptions are of minor importance compared to general formal structures. The opposite is the case with UDC in which substantial parts of the taxonomy are constructed on the basis of the “traditional” paradigms. The DDC system can be placed in between. The taxonomy of the BBK is based on the Marxist conception of art and has a less “bricolage” like structure, because the “deep” structure is more rational as a result of an overriding theoretical construction. On the other hand this “firm” construction creates “blindness” in the sense that non-Marxist concepts tend to be excluded or “negated”.

Especially the UDC is well suited for representation of knowledge produced in the contexts of pre-paradigmatic, iconological, and stylistic studies. During the recent three decades the so-called “new” art history or the “new” art scholarship has developed interdisciplinary approaches - or paradigms - that break with both the general discourse on art and the “traditional” paradigms. This means that the “new” art history by introducing new contexts and new theoretical positions breaks with the principles (and practice) of knowledge organisation at the three levels. From a LIS knowledge organisation point of view the challenge is to be able to represent the documents produced by the “new” art scholars in (theoretically) adequate ways in addition to the representation of the whole historical corpus of documents on art. The central problem is that a hierarchical system based on a “traditional” discourse combined with concepts from the “traditional” paradigms is “conceptually closed”. At a pragmatic level a “polyhierarchical” thesaurus as for instance the Art & Architecture Thesaurus seems to be a step towards a solution of some problems raised by the approaches of the “new” art history. Because the Art & Architecture Thesaurus is a more “open” and more expanded work of “bricolage” than universal classification systems is it easier to integrate new aspects of art studies in the facet structure. But at a theoretical level the eclecticism and the “additive” conception of conceptual relations mean that the Art & Architecture Thesaurus has a problematic epistemological foundation.

Aagesen, D., Abildgaard, H., Zerland, M. & Warming, R. (2002). The avant-garde in Danish and European Art 1909-1919 : Exhibition Guide. Copenhagen : Statens Museum for Kunst.

Getty Research Institute (2003). Art & Architecture Thesaurus. [www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary ] (Also published as: Petersen, T. (1994). Art & architecture thesaurus. 2nd ed. New York : Oxford University Press. 5 vols.):

Bacon, F. (1605/1965). The Advancement of Learning. London : Dent Everyman’s Library. (Originally published 1605).

Bal, M. (1999). Quoting Caravaggio : contemporary art, preposterous history. Chicago and London : The University of Chicago Press.

Bibliothekarisch-bibliographische Klassifikation, Band Šč Kunst. Kunstwissenschaft. (1968). Vol. 21. Berlin : Methodisches Zentrum für wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken.

Bostick, C.H. & Mandel, C.(1976). Classification and the Art Library User: Some Theoretical Considerations. ARLIS/NA Newletter4(4/5), 1-3.

Clarke, S. (1976). Library Classification in the Arts. ARLIS/NA Newletter4(4/5), 3-4.

D’Alembert, J. Le Rond (1751/1995). Preliminaty discourse to the Encyclopedia of Diderot. Chicago and London : The University of Chicago Press. (Original appeared 1751).

Dewey, M. (1876). A Classification and subject Index for Cataloguing and Arranging the Books and Pamphlets of a Library. Amherst, Mass.

Dewey, M. (1990). Abridged Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index. Edition 12. Albany, New York: Forest Press.

Fernie, E. (1995). Art history and its methods : A critical anthology. London : Phaidon Press.

Ferrari, R.C. (1999) The Art of Classification : Alternate Classification Systems in Art Libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 28(2), 73-98.

Hansson, J. (1999). Klassifikation, bibliotek och samhälle : En kritisk hermeneutisk studie av ”Klassifikationssystem för svenska bibliotek” (Classification, Library and Society : A Critical Hermeneutic Study of ‘The Swedish Classification System”). Göteborg : Valfrid.

Hauser, A. (1968) The social history of art. Vol. 1-4. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul. (English original appeared 1951)

Heidmann, A. (2003). Organiseringens kunst – en analyse af vidensorganisation inden for kunstinstitutionen. (The Art of Organizing – an Analysis of the Knowledge Organisation within the Art Institution). Aalborg : Danmarks Biblioteksskole. (Unpublished thesis).

Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis and information science : Eleven approaches – traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4) 422-462.

Hjørland, B. (2003). Fundamentals of Knowledge Organization. Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimiento : Trends in Knowledge Organization Research/ José Antonio Frías, Críspulo Travieso (eds.). Salamanca : Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 83-116. [Modified version to be published in Knowledge Organization 2003, 30(1)]

Janson, H.W. (1995). History of Art. Fifth edition. Revised and expanded by Anthony F. Janson. New York : Harry N. Abrams.

Korenic, L. (1997). Inside The Discipline, outside the Paradigm : Keeping Track of the New Art History. Art Libraries Journal 22 (3) 12-18.

Læssøe, R. Billedets liv : Syv kapitler om det moderne ikon. Fra Ingres til Bacon. (The life of the image. Seven chapters on the modern icon. From Ingres to Bacon.) Copenhagen : Multivers.

Molholt, P. & Petersen, T. (1993). The Role of the „Art and Architecture Thesaurus“ in

Muñiz, G. G. (2003). La clasificación de la filosofía: el sistema decimal de Dewey a la luz de los sistemas de clasificación de F. Bacon y l’Encyclopedie. Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimiento : Trends in Knowledge Organization Research/ José Antonio Frías, Críspulo Travieso (eds.). Salamanca : Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, p. 183-210.

Nørgaard Larsen, P. (2000). Symbolism in Danish and European painting 1870-1910. Copenhagen : Statens Museum for Kunst.

Paludan-Müller, C. (1996) Museet i tiden : Erindringsrum og verdensspej i Museerne ved årtusindskiftet.. (The museum in the time : Space of memory and mirror of the world at the turn of the millennium).

Polster, J.F. (1976). The Crafts and Dewey’s Decimals. ARLIS/NA Newletter4(4/5), 8-11.

Rafferty, P. (2001). The Representation of Knowledge in Library Classification Systems. Knowledge Organization 28 (4), 180-191.

San Segundo Manuel, R. (1996). Sistemas de organización del conocimiento. Madrid : Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Boletín Oficial del estado.

Schimansky,D.D. (1976). The Metropolitan Museum of Art Library Classification System: How it works. ARLIS/NA Newletter4(4/5), 4-6.

SuperLCCS (1998). Gale’s Library of Congress Classification Schedules combined with Additions and Changes Through 1998: Classification: Class N, Fine Arts. Washington : Library of Congress.

Universal Decimal Classification : International Medium Edition. Part 1. Systematic tables. (1993) London : BSi Standards.

Wyngaard, S. (1993). Fine Arts. The Humanities and the Library. Nena Couch and Nancy Allen (eds.). Chicago and London : American Library association, p. 1-44.

Ørom, A. (2003a). Kunsten at organisere viden om kunsten (The Art of Organizing Knowledge on the Art). Aalborg : Biblioteksarbejde 65, 61-76.