This paper traces the development of the discipline of art history, particularly in relation to its attendant documentation (both textual and visual), and the bibliographical ‘machinery’ which has been developed to control it. Problems of control, organisation and retrieval are discussed, with particular emphasis on subject analysis. By drawing attention to the difficulties which have beset this field in the past, some pointers for those involved in current projects such as the Art and Architecture Thesaurus project, the videodisc, etc., where technology may prove to be a significant tool, are identified.

Following a conference ‘Bibliographie d’histoire de l’art’, in Paris in 1969, considerable developments have occurred in the control of art-historical documentation. This paper surveys the not insignificant role which computers have played in this development, tracing the appearance of bibliographical art databases (serial bibliographies and abstracting and indexing services, library catalogues and networks, and individual computer-aided projects), and developments in the management and analysis of ‘museum’ objects and images. The greatest importance is attached to co-operation between the various activities outlined, and matters such as standardisation (of content and form) and compatibility of systems are discussed in depth. In conclusion, a series of goals are proposed.

The documentation problems faced by museums, and the organisations established to assist in tackling them are described along with an assessment of present progress at individual museum, and national and international co-ordination levels. The role which computers may play in this field is examined. However, systems analysis is the first priority, and automation is only one solution, and not appropriate in all cases.

This paper outlines some of the practical problems facing those involved with image collections, and the financial implications of the retrieval complexities allied to the scale of such collections, when computer-aided systems are considered. Projects carried out since the early 1970s are described, and existing classification systems such as ‘Iconclass’ are assessed, with emphasis on the need for compatibility. A realistic approach to making basic information readily accessible in a relatively cheap system which may later be expanded given the non-economically viable nature of this field, is recommended.

Those in charge of image collections in North America have found it difficult to agree upon standards for classifying and cataloguing their material, and many individual and incompatible systems have been developed. However there has been some recent progress in co-ordination, and this paper surveys some inter-institutional projects attempting to create standards, based on an awareness of user needs, primarily the Image Access Society, the Library of Congress list of subject headings for the Prints and Photographs Division, the Picture Division Thesaurus of the Public Archives of Canada and the Art and Architecture Thesaurus.

This paper is a continuation of a survey, “Subject indexing of visual resources: a survey”, published in Visual Resources: an International Journal of Documentation, Vol. 1, no. 1, Spring 1980, pp.67-73.

Identification of a visual image by computer may be achieved by ‘training’ the system to recognise examples within determined classification categories. Certain methods of achieving this have been made more feasible (particularly financially) by the advancement of silicon chip technology. This paper explains the underlying principles, with particular reference to the WISARD system developed at Brunei University, and proposes some possible applications to the classification and retrieval of art images.

In general terms, this paper is about the possibilities newly available to art historians, because of the new cheapness, of computing, and the problems which still exist in the areas of data and image storage, retrieval and display. First it tries to assess the technology from a layman’s point of view, then ventures into the contentious matter of how many art historians (in these days of reduced funding) are either able or willing to take advantage (if there are advantages) of new technology. Threading throughout the paper are doubts about whether the use of computers can or will advance the study of the subject (as opposed to making that study easier), and about whether the finance for some of the hardware mentioned could ever be raised by any non-scientific department.