Reading 8

Shatford, Sara (1986). Analyzing the Subject of a Picture: A Theoretical Approach. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 6(3), pp. 39-62.

Found in: Mahard, Martha (May 24, 2007). Describing Photographs in the Online Environment: SAA Workshop. Bloomington, IN: Society of American Archivists.

While doing my internship in the photographs department of the Indiana University Archives, I have spent a lot of time working with the Charles W. Cushman photographs collection, both when I've been filling out permission-to-publish forms for Cushman images and when I've been confirming new information people have given us about the images. The Cushman collection includes extensive subject headings and other tags which allow the images to be searched in a variety of ways, and this made me interested in how an archivist should go about selecting subject headings for such a digital collection.

This article does not prescribe a particular classification system or set of procedures, but rather examines in a more general way the "theoretical basis for identifying and classifying the kinds of subjects a picture may have" (39).

The author begins by discussing the ways in which a collection of pictures may be used, since the ways in which a collection will be used should influence the way in which subjects are assigned to its images. Shatford notes that images may be used by "historians, teachers and students, illustrators, architects, designers and hobbyists, collectors and curators of various objects, even by librarians" (41), and that such researchers may use pictures both as a source of information and as illustrations for research. She also points out that researchers with different backgrounds and interests may use the same image in vastly different ways. Most importantly, researchers may seek images in a variety of ways. For instance, they may want an image of a specific person or event, an image of a particular time period or type of event, or even an image that illustrates an abstract theme.

Shatford uses art historian Erwin Panofsky's theory that there are three levels of meaning in works of art as the basis for her analysis of the types of subjects any image can have. Panofsky identifies these levels as pre-iconography, iconography, and iconology. The pre-iconography is the "primary or natural matter, subdivided into factual and expressional" (43). Factual elements include identifiable objects while expressional elements include the "mood" of a work. The first is objective and the second subjective, and Shatford distinguishes the two by identifying the first as what the image is "of" and the second as what the image is "about." The author writes that iconography "incorporates the identification of specific (not generic) objects, as in the sitter for a portrait; it also incorporates the identification of images representing certain ideas, themes, or concepts, as in stories or allegories" (44). Panofsky identifies the third level of meaning, iconology, as the "intrinsic meaning of content" (45), but Shatford indicates that these level of meaning cannot be included in subject indexes in a reliable way. She also notes that all images are both generic and specific--for instance, an image of the Golden Gate Bridge is both an image of a specific thing as well as a representation of a type of object, such as bridges or architecture.

Based on these theories, Shatford creates a "faceted classification" for the subjects of images. She writes that "the different facets for the classification of the subjects of pictures may be defined initially as containing the answers to the series of questions Who? What? When? and Where? Each of these basic facets may then be subdivided into aspects based on Of in the specific sense, Of in the generic sense, and About" (48).

Shatford then goes on to explore each of these facets in detail and provide examples of how each facet could be used in the case of a particular image. For instance, in discussing the "Who?" facet, the author takes as an example a photograph of the Guaranty Building in Buffalo, New York designed by Louis Sullivan. She writes that "This picture might have in the Who facet: Sullivan's Guaranty Building (Specific Of); Skyscraper (Generic Of); and Modern Architecture (About--Manifestation of an abstraction)" (50). She also points out that anyone assigning subjects to images should be aware of the issue of images which are reproductions of other works, such as paintings, and be consistent in how he or she assigns subjects to these images.

The next section is devoted to deciding which of all these potential subjects should actually be assigned to a particular image since practical considerations, such as time and money, will almost always limit the number of terms which can be assigned to any particular image. Shatford notes that one of the most important factors in deciding which subjects should be assigned is the users of the collections. For instance, the author indicates that an image should be indexed very differently if it is in a costume museum as opposed to a general collection. In such a specialized museum, the image should be indexed with subjects relevant to people interested in costumes.

Shatford then tackles the question of how best to determine the appropriate depth of indexing. She gives two guidelines for making this determination: the "threshold of detail" and the "threshold of pertinence" (58). The threshold of detail guideline establishes the rule that anything which is "necessarily an integral part of a larger whole" will not be indexed. For instance, if a woman appears in an image, the woman would be indexed, but not her head, hands, etc. The threshold of pertinence guideline indicates that an element is only meaningful enough to be indexed if it is clearly enough represented that someone looking for that element might find the picture useful or if the presence of the element is unusual.

While this article is a theoretical look at how the subject indexing of images should be approached rather than a practical guide on how to do so, the ideas outlined by the author and the questions she raises seem to be a very good starting point for any archivist faced with the task of coming up with a system for assigning subjects to a collection of images.