College and Research Libraries BETTY JO IRVINE Slide Classification: A Historical Survey The historical background of slide collections is treated, with biblio- graphic references. The major portion of the paper reports and ana- lyzes some of the data derived from a 1968 questionnaire directed to institutions having slide collections. ''T HE NAME 'L:mRARY' has lost its ety- mologic meaning and means not a collec- tion of books, but the central agency for disseminating information, innocent recrea- tion or, best of all, inspiration among peo- ple. Whenever this can be done better, more quickly or cheaply by a picture than a book, the picture is entitled to a place on the shelves and in the catalog. " ... A generation ago the lantern slide was little known except in magic lantern en- tertainments, and it required some cour- age for the first schools to make it a part of the educational apparatus. Today there is hardly a college or university subject which is not receiving great aid from· the lantern. No one thinks of it as a course in art or discusses it from an ethical standpoint. It is needed by the engineer, physician, bota- nist, astronomer, statistician, in fact in every conceivable field, but of course, it is spe- cially adapted to popular study of fine arts because they are so dependent on vis- ual examples, and the lantern is the cheap and ready substitute for costly galleries." Melvil Deweyl Slides, like other nonbook materials, are being liberated from the garrets of libraries and are beginning to share the limelight with books in the literature and Mrs. Irvine is Assistant Fine Arts Librar- ian and Supervisor of the Photograph and Slide Collection, Fine Arts Library, Indi- ana University. at professional gatherings. During 1969 alone, two periodical publications ap- peared.2 In addition, several important studies which will result in formal pub- lications are now in progress, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art's "Clas- sification System," and the ''Universal Slide Classification System with Auto- matic Indexing" developed at the State University of California at Santa Cruz.3 Slide curators and librarians also took their places at professional meetings: the College Art Association's Annual Meeting in Boston; and the Institute for Training in Librarianship entitled, "Art Libraries: Their Comprehensive Role in Preserving Contemporary Visual Re- sources" held at the State University of New York at Buffalo from June 16 to June 20, 1969. Mrs. Florence S. Da- Luiso, Art Librarian of the Harriman Art and Music Library, was the Director of the Institute. As its title implies, the Institute focused on the problems inher- ent in art libraries, be they book- or non- book-oriented, and the multifarious ways in which humanists utilize these collec- tions. An entire day was devoted to the topic of slide collections-their organi- zation and operation-in which Eleanor Collins, Curator, Slide and Photograph Collection, Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan; Mrs. Lu- raine Tansey, Slide Librarian, State Uni- I 23 24 I College & Research Libraries • January 1971 versity of California at Santa Cruz; and the present writer participated. The fol- lowing report was delivered at the In- stitute by the present writer. In an earlier publication, the present writer discussed the nature and purpose of the study in progress. In order to clar- ify the comments to follow, a brief re- capitulation is necessary. In August of 1968, a comprehensive study, including a survey of the history of slide collec- tions, their present status, and various practical and formal library procedural matters was undertaken. One product of this study will be the publication of a comparative study manual "so that slide librarians and ·curators might have a choice of various systems and procedures currently in practice, that they might have some background knowledge, and finally, that they might have a sense of community with others facing problems similar to theirs. The proposal of an 'ideal' system is not the aim of the study, since most users of such a study will be working from already existing collections which have probably grown to such pro- portions that a complete revision would not be feasible."4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The earliest noted slide collections date from the 1880s and include the Chi- cago Art Institute, -Cornell University, Dartmouth College, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Princeton University, the University of Illinois, and the U ni- versity of Michigan. It was not until 1884 that George Eastman patented the roll film system; collections 'begun prior to this time depended upon the lantern slide, which is a 3}~" x 4" glass slide with glass used as the medium upon which the image was printed. Many lantern slides were hand painted and were works of art in their own right. In many collec- tions today, the familiar lantern slide, which dates back to the seventeenth cen- tury, is still in active use and is particu- larly preferred by the older faculty mem- bers.5 In quite a few of the older col- lections, the lantern slide vs the 2" x 2" or 35 mm slide controversy is still raging and will be mentioned later in the con- text of the literature and questionnaires. In the 1930s, color dye processes were perfected by Leopold D. Mannes and Leopold Godowsky, Jr., in collaboration with the Kodak Research Laboratory. The result of this work was the introduction of the Kodachrome three-color film proc- ess. It was not until the perfection of this particular technique that 35 mm color slides were widely accepted. As a consequence of these new de- velopments, the controversy between the merits of the color 35 mm slide and the black and white lantern slide began ap- pearing in the literature at this time. In 1943, art historians argued the issues in two articles appearing in the College Art ] ournal. 6 Although over twenty years old, these articles have meaning today because slide librarians and cu- rators are still faced with using lantern slides, buying them, or producing them (on roll film). The physical format of these older slides allows for easy hand viewing, but creates storage problems because they require two-thirds more space than 2" x 2" slides. 7 In addition, separate _ projection facilities are re- quired because most projection systems are not readily adaptable to both sizes. Moreover, the rarity of literature on this topic makes a solution rather elusive. Until the 1960s, the literature was somewhat sporadic and far from com- prehensive. The decade of the 1950s produced nine articles, three of them dealing with slide production. 8 An area that is yet to be dealt with in a satis- factory manner for slide curators and li- brarians is that of color control which is extremely crucial to art "history slide collections. This very problem has been one of the major contributing factors in the schism between users of black and white as opposed to color slides. Classi- fication system. studies have also suffered from the dearth of literature, with only a few published attempts available at clarifying systems presently in use. 9 Moreover, until 1969, although many classification systems were available up- on request from individual institutions such systems had not yet actually bee~ published. As -a courtesy to these schools and museums (and to lighten the burden of their postage and duplication costs), use should be made of the Bibliographic Systems Center ( BSC) at the School of Library Science at Case Western Re- serve University wher e a special collec- tion of classification systems and subject heading lists in almost every field are administered. According to the official notifications by the BSC, "A book guide to this collection, 'The Bibliography of Selected Material in Classification/ com- piled by Barbara D enison, is b eing pub- lished and copies· may be obtained from the Special Libraries Association." What has been especially n eeded, however, is a philosophy for slide classification and cataloging, not m er ely a recitation of the details of a particular system which hap- p ens to function adequately for one par- ticular situation. The 1970s propitiously forecast in- sights into solutions for critical slide col- lection issues. As .m entioned earlier, the development of a "Universal Slide Clas- sification System with Automatic In- dexing" at the State University of Cal- ifornia at Santa Cruz has been a hall- mark in terms of significant publica- tions.10 Perusal of a preliminary edition of this work is enlightening not only in terms of its ramifications for the future of slide collections both in scientific and humanistic disciplines, but also as a meaningful, though brief, essay on slide cataloging and classification philosophy. In addition, the Metropolitan Museum of Art's "Classification System" by Pris- cilla Farah, and that at the University of Minnesota by Dimitri Tselos are both to Slide Classification I 25 be published in the near future. Another publication in progress is Guidelines for the Organization and Administration of Audio-visual Materials by the ACRL Audio-visual committee of ,ALA. PREsENT STUDY . As can be gathered, providing a pa- t~on with high quality material in a meaiii'ngful arrangement and providing the slide librarian with adequate data to do so are not simple tasks. To ease the burden, the present study was under- taken. In August of 1968, 112 question- naires ("Slide Library Comparative S~udy Questionnaire") were mailed to college, university, and a select number of museum slide collections. In Decem- ber 1968, 61 follow-up letters were mailed to institutions that had not yet responded. 11 The inadequacies of such an initial study are overwhelming because of the very nature of starting from a base of zero in terms of the establishment of mailing lists, the lack of standardized terminology, and the determination of the scope or limitations of such a project. Because there has n ever been an at- tempt to define precisely the various op- erations and procedures practiced in slide collections, it was quite difficult to write a questionnaire that could be un- derstood in exactly the same manner by everyone reading and answering it. In order to compensate for this lack of ac- cepted vocabulary, the format of the questionnaire was in outline form with an attempt to include all possible varia- tions and explanations of operations so that the respondee could merely check the most appropriate answer or, in a limited number of cases, fill in a blank. Even this' format was not totally satis- factory, and consequently; the interpre- tation and tabulation of each question- naire often produced erratic statistical correlation. . The total num h er of questionnaires 26 I College & Research Libraries • January 1971 tabulated as of this report is 65. The to- tal number of responses to the question- naire is 80. This latter figure includes the following breakdown: eight collec- tions too small · to merit inclusion in the study (distinction made by the person who did not answer the questionnaire) ; five institutions that stated nonexistence of a collection; and two institutions which sent descriptive letters of collec- tions rather than answering the question- naires.12 Thus, 71 percent ( 80) of the original 112 institutions responded to a request for information regarding their facilities. Although an attempt was made initial- ly to set a limitation on the size of the collection included in the present study, the base of 25,000 was dropped because not all sources consulted gave the exact sizes of slide collections; also, because of the tremendous growth rates of many collections, it seemed unfair to omit col- lections under such an arbitrary stan- dard. Consequently, the frequent lack of such data coupled with the desire to include as many academic collections as possible negated the use of a size-limi- tation factor for the inclusion or exclu- sion of slide collections in this study. The following section of this report in- dicates the similarities and differences in slide collections and the subsequent trends that have occurred as noted in the questionnaires tabulated thus far. A brief description of each of the seven sections of the questionnaire will be fol- lowed by a discussion of the answers calculated on both a numerical and a percentage basis. Section I of the questionnaire dealt with questions regarding the history of collections, i.e., date of origin, purpose of collection, and the type of staff in charge of the collection at its inception. Although audiovisual materials in librar- ies have only recently come to the fore as a serious study source, they have been a fairly steady and consistently occur- ring phenmnenon in art history depart- ments. Over the past seventy years, only the 1940s and the 1950s witnessed a sig- nificant rise in the initial development of these collections. This increase is very likely due to the fact that this period marked the widespread use of 2" x 2" or 35 mm slides which were pointed out in the literature of the time as being con- siderably less expensive than the stan- dard lantern slides. These trends n1ight also have been indicative of the steady rise of art historical studies as more than a mere humanities adjunct to liberal arts education in the United States. In most art history departments , the slide collection has been developed to serve solely the art department; there- fore, it is not surprising that 57 percent ( 36) of these collections were faculty- run when first started, as compared to the 17 percent ( 11) which were initially organized and staffed either by an in- dividual with a graduate library degree ( M.L.S.) or a master's degree in art history. Section II of the questionnaire con- centrated on varieties of classification systems in use. As would be expected due to the origin of these collections, 58 percent ( 38) of the systems presently in use are based upon a historical chro- nology and style arrangement with vari- ous modifications of subdivisions within this format. In lieu of the notation vs ab- sence-of-notation controversy surround- ing slide collections, 29 percent ( 19) of the institutions responded that they have a system using some form of decimal no- tation. Only five of these nineteen col- lections began after 1940. In addition , two of the institutions in the survey noted that they were dropping a nota- tion system-one of these includes the Fogg ~1useum Collection of Harvard University which is no longer using it for their 2" x 2" slide collection. If the arrangement of the collections beginning in the last thirty years is used as a guide, then it is possible that there has been a trend away from a specific type of decimal or numerical notation system for slide collections. There are, however, two schools of thought in this matter. The factor of cost involved in the cataloging and classifying of indi- vidual slides, coupled with the capability of their rapid production or purchase by institutions have probably contributed in the movement away from a compli- cat<~d notation scheme and toward a n1ore simplified labelling method based upon some type of alphabetical abbre- viation system. It is possible, however, that automatic indexing or computer ap- plications might change the trend in this area. The two classification systems 1nost commonly used as a basis for other col- lections are the Metropolitan Museum of Art's scheme and the Fogg Art Mu- seum's scheme. Approximately 22 per- cent ( 14) of the collections noted that their classification systems were bor- rowed from these institutions. As ex- pected, 35 percent ( 23) of the systems were based on faculty requests. The re- Inainder were personally devised by the original staff or had unknown origins. Section III of the questionnaire in- cluded slide production and expansion operations presently practiced in slide collections. Questions on the production and purchase of 35 mm and lantern slides, the growth rate, types of filn1 used, and the basis for commercial or- ders were listed. The preference by some art historians for lantern slides over the 2" x 2" slide is still unresolved, as 22 percent ( 14) of the institutions re- sponded that they are presently engaged either in making or buying lantern slides. Needless to say, the size of the image does contribute to the quality of a projected image, but then again, so does the clarity of the original image that has been copied in order to make slides. Many slides are reproduced from books or are copied from master slides (if pur- chased) thereby being several times re- n1oved from the quality of the original Slide Classification I 21 image. It should be noted that of the fourteen schools still involved in adding lantern slides to their collections, only two began their collections after 1935. As mentioned earlier, it was difficult to pinpoint collections of a specific size in advance of mailing the questionnaires. The resulting broad range of collections makes it difficult to generalize in regard to average weekly or yearly production figures. For example, a very small col- lection might be expanding at a greater yearly rate than a more established col- lection. The latter can be more selective in its slide acquisition pattern because it already has a core collection of basic art historical monuments to support its clientele's demands. At the same time, if a department is faced with a great deal of faculty or staff turnover and with the installation of new courses or frequent cuiTiculum changes, the collection en- counters a more rapid growth than might be predicted by its actual size. Conse- quently, no attempt will be made to make any gross generalizations about growth rates; if information on specific institutions or regions is desired, figures may be supplied upon request. Another critical area in slide acquisi- tion policies is whether or not to buy slides commercially. Such purchases are often quite expensive, particularly in light of the comparative absence of qualitative guides which would allow for knowledgeable discrimination when se- lecting dealers and their material. Most responsible dealers, however, usually send material on approval. As far as can be ascertained, only a handful of listings are available to the slide curator. The present writer's knowledge of such lists has been acquired over a period of three years through correspondence and, in two cases, through a literature search.13 In fact, 80 percent (52) of the institu- tions in the study base their commercial purchases not solely upon lists but upon previous experience with particular deal- ers. One question specifically asked for 28 I College & Research Librm·ies • January 1971 previous knowledge of a formal listing prepared and distributed upon request by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.and entitled, "Sources of Slides Illustrating the History of Art." This list is probably the most comprehensive and reliable source for commercial and museum slide dealers in the United States and Eu- rope. Of the 65 institutions responding, 26 percent ( 17) had no knowledge of this list. Section IV of the questionnaire. in- volved the use of standard library tools or techniques used by slide libraries. The results of this section were indicative of the fact that most slide curators and li- brarians are fairly sophisticated users of library tools and that the title "slide li- brary" might be a more informative and valid nomenclature than "collection." An inventory check system is an . in- valuable aid to slide collections in the same manner that it is to book collec- tions. Separate or interfiled shelflists are the two types used in slide libraries. An interfiled shelflist refers to the place- ment of a shelflist card in front of or be- hind each slide in a drawer storage case. Of the collections polled, 55 percent ( 36) have either an interfiled or a sep- arate shelflist. Although 40 percent ( 26) of the col- lections did not have an authority file · of all artists and architects included in their slide holdings, 53 percent ( 35) relied on the Thieme-B eeker Lexikon of ar- tists, along with other aids · to verify names.14 Twenty-nine percent ( 19) however did have separate authority files for painters and 31 percent ( 20) maintained a separate authority file for architects. Of the 65 collections, 25 per- cent ( 16) maintained authority files for both painters and architects. Forty per- cent ( 26) d epended upon faculty recom- mendations to make entry decisions for artists' and/or architects' names within their files. Such files are quite critical to the efficient organization of a slide .col- lection because, without an authority which is consistently and readily utilized for name entries, a single artist may be filed under a variety of names and coun- tries, thereby dispersing his works cha- otically throughout the slide files. Another type of check system useful in slide collections is the source file or accession record. Only 21 percent ( 14) make no allowance whatsoever for this technique, which requires source data for each slide to be printed directly upon the slide or to be printed in a sup- plementary record form. Because many slides are copied directly from plates in books, a source file can function as a bibliographic aid referring a patron to specific texts relating to the slide image. Generally speaking, slide collections are beginning to take their place with the ·ranks of book libraries in terms of their utilization of similar tools and tech- niques on a 1evel that should in the fu- ture becon1e even more indicative of the ways in which these collections work in conjunction with an art library. For further information on the interrelation- ship between slide collections and art libraries, the reader is referred to an ex- cellent artic1 e by Frederick Cummings.15 Section V dealt with circulation meth- ods currently practiced in slide collec- tions. Only 17 percent ( 11) took no mea- sures at all to supervise the circulation of slides. The most common check-out system used is charge-sheets (sheets on which a patron lists each slide individ- ually giving either a full subject descrip- tion or only accession or alphabetical code · nu1nbers) with 43 percent ( 28) utilizing this technique. Because of the heavy faculty use patterns, the applica- tion of stringent circulation methods is rather difficult, i.e. , the feasibility of checking out thirty to forty or n1ore slides for a single lecture often prohibits a slide curator or librarian from asking the patron to con1ply with involved check-out procedures for individual slides. Consequently, the art history fac- ulty or staff may not be utilizing the charge-sheet method but another sim- pler check-out technique, such as inter- filed color code cards ( each faculty or staff member has a discrete color card which replaces the slide he has removed and is usually placed in back of the slide's interfiled shelflist card) . Section VI covered questions on stor- age and projection systen1s for slide col- lections. A rather high percentage, 52 percent ( 34), of the collections in this study still have enough lantern slides to merit the use of double projection sys- tems to compensate for the size differ- ence between 2" x 2" and 3W' x 4" slides. Twenty-eight percent ( 18) of the institutions, however, are in the process of duplication of their lantern slides onto 2" x 2" or 35 mm slides. Specialized equipment for audiovisual material and especially for slide collec- tions has been slow in developing, but there has been satisfaction noted in some areas in this particular study. Fifty-seven percent ( 37) of the institutions indicat- ed that the desired efficiency had been reached for storage facilities for slides. Only 35 percent ( 23) were equally sat- isfied with their, .projection systems. Not all slide libraries, however, maintain and purchase their own projectors. In some instances, the audiovisual department handles this aspect of the slide collec- tion facilities. Section VII of the questionnaire ex- amined the present staffs of slide col- lections. As noted earlier, 57 percent ( 36) of these collections were faculty- run when first initiated as opposed to 17 percent ( 11) which were organized and staffed by an individual with either an M.A. in art history or an M.L.S. in li- brary science. Of the 57 percent ( 36) which were faculty-run originally, about one-third are now staffed by an individ- ual with an M.A: or an M.L.S.l6 Another third of these 36 collections are now staffed by individuals with undergrad- uate degrees (who are usually consid- ered clerical) with the remaining third Slide Classificat-ion I 29 still under faculty supervision, main- tained by M.F.A. graduates or by indi- viduals without a college degree. Another promising indication of the changing status of slide collection staffs is the fact that 47 percent ( 29) of the 65 institutions are staffed presently with individuals having either an M.L.S., an M.A. in art history, or an M.L.S. plus an additional graduate degree. In addi- tion, 23 percent ( 15) of the respon- dents indicated an interest in elevating their staffs frmn a clerical to a profes- sional level. In many instances, the mere realization or recognition that there is a problem marks the first step toward change. · .Not all subsections of the question- naire have been discussed. Queries and criticisms will be gladly entertained be- cause the total picture is a twofold mat- ter relying both on specific data and on liberal dialogue atnong those seeking to make slide collections "libraries," and not merely masses of material. REFERENCES 1. Melvil Dewey, "Library Pictures," · Public Libraries 11 : 10 ( 1906) . 2. Betty J o Irvine, "Slide Collections in Art Libraries," College & Research Libraries 30:443-45 (Sept. 1969); Elizabeth M. Lewis, "A Graphic Cata- log Card Index," American Documen- tation 20: 238-46 ( 1969) . 3;. "Classification System for Slides," In- formation Retrieval and Library Auto- mation 3:9 (1968); Wendell W. Sim- ons and Luraine C. Tansey, A Uni- versal Slide Classification System with Automatic Indexing (Santa Cruz, Cal- ifornia: The University Library, Uni- versity of California, 1969) . (A Pre- liminary Edition which is out-of-print.) 4. Irvine, "Slide Collections," p.444. · 5. ' Alfred Guenther, "Slides in Documen- . tation," UNESCO Bulletin for Librar- ies 17:157 ( 1963). 6. Philip C. Beam, "Color Slide Contro- versy," College Art Journal 2:35- 38 ( 1943); James M. Carpenter, "Limi- 30 I College & Research Libraries • january 1971 tations of Color Slides," Ibid., p.38-40. 7. Shirley Ellis, "Thousand Words About the Slide," ALA Bulletin 53:529- 32 ( 1959) . 8. Richard Bibler, "Make an Art Slide Li- brary," Design 56: 105ff ( 1955); L. B. Bridaham and C. B. Mitchell, "Success- ful Duplication of Color Slides; Re- sults of Research at the Chicago Art Institute," College Art journal 10:261- 63 ( 1951) ; Ellis, "Thousand Words," p.529- 32; P. L. Moeller, "Slide and Photographic Services of the Museum of Modern Art," Special Libraries As- sociation (Conference, 41st, Atlantic City; proceedings, June 12- 16, 1950) , p.77- 79; L. F. Perusse, .. Classifying and Cataloguing Lantern Slides," Jour- nal of Cataloguing and Classification 10:77-83 ( 1954); Phyllis A. Reinhardt, "Photograph and Slide Collections in Art Libraries," Special Libraries 50: 97-102 (1959); Dimitri Tselos, "A Simple Slide Classification System," College Art journal 15:344-49 ( 1958); Lester C. Walker, Jr. , "Low Cost Slide Production for Teaching Aids," College Art journal 13:39-41 ( 1953); Lester C. Walker, Jr., "Slide Filing and Con- trol," College Art journal 16:325-29 ( 1957) . 9. P. Harvard-Williams and S. Watson, "The Slide Collection at Liverpool School of Architecture," journal of Documentation 16:11-14 (1960); L. E. Kohn, "A Photograph and Lan- tern Slide Catalog in the Making," Li- brary 1 ournal 57:941-45 ( 1932) ; B. W. Kuvshinoff, "A Graphic Graph- ics Card Catalog and Computer In- dex," American Documentation 18:3-9 ( 1967); Elizabeth M. Lewis, "A Graphic Catalog Card Index," Ameri- can Documentation 20: 238-46 ( 1969) ; E. Louise Lucas, "The Classification and Care of Pictures and Slides," ALA Bulletin 24:382-85 ( 1930); Perusse, "Classifying and Cataloguing," p. 77- 83; Simons and Tansey, "A Universal Slide"; E. Swann, "Problems Involved in Establishing a Slide Collection in the School of Architecture, School of Melbourne," Australian Library jour- nal 9:159- 62 (1960); Tselos, "A Sim- ple Slide," p.344-49; Walker, "Slide Filing and Control," p.325-29; Bren- da White, Slide Collections: A Survey of Their Organisation in Libraries in the Fields of Architecture, Building, and Planning (Edinburgh, 21 Morningside Gardens: Brenda White, 1967). 10. Simons and Tansey, "A Universal Slide." 11. As of this writing, approximately 30 institutions have been added to the original figure, and questionnaires are still being received. 12. The reason for the institutions stating the nonexistence of a collection is not readily explainable as reliable direc- tories (American Art Directory, Amer- ican Library Direct01'1j, and the Direc- tory of Special Libraries and I nforma- tion Centers) were used to establish a mailing list. 13. Sandra· A. Kocher, "2 x 2 Color Slides of Art," Art Journal 23:42ff (1963) ; "Where to Find Lantern Slides; a List of Distributors," College Art journal 5: 137-39 ( 1946). 14. Ulrich Thieme, Allgemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Kiinstler von der An- tike zur Gegenwart (Leipzig: E. A. Seeman, 1908-1954). 15. Frederick Cummings, "Art Reference Library," College & Research Librar- ies 27:201-06 (May 1966). 16. The institutions which noted this tran- sition include the following: Arizona State University; Brooklyn College of the City University of New York; Princeton University; University of Cal- ifornia at Berkeley; University of Illi- nois; University of Iowa; University of Michigan; University of Minnesota; University of North Carolina; Univer- sity of Oregon; University of Pennsyl- vania; University of Pittsburgh; and the University of Texas.