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

Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is a flexible classification scheme that allows the full expression of the subject of a book. However such flexibility requires decisions to be taken on how to apply and use the schedules. This article discusses the choices made by Tate Library in its implementation of the classification scheme and how the Library has developed UDC for its in-house use, in particular the expansion of the section for modern art.

The second edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2) is a faceted classification scheme which reworks the original Bliss Classification, devised a century ago. It compares favourably in terms of its wealth of detail, the fineness of its analysis, its flexibility and the conciseness of its notation with its main rivals, the Library of Congress Classification, the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification. The Art class, W, is one of the most detailed and best organised of the BC2 schedules, with the caveat that the author did not find the giving of priority to place over period and the listing of individual artists separately from their periods and places to be the most helpful arrangement. However, room is left for alternative arrangements within the scheme.

Class N is the schedule for the fine arts in the Library of Congress classification scheme. LCC reflects the needs of a general research library but number construction is flexible and the scheme is kept current. It has worked well for many art and architecture collections, but what are some of the issues with the scheme? Can a general scheme satisfy the needs of the focused collection in a special library? And there is the unasked and unanswered question: does shelf classification matter in the 21st century, especially for digital materials?

Creating an adapted classification scheme is a solution frequently adopted by art libraries to arrange their collections. However, writing the scheme is only the start: an adapted scheme needs continuous updating to maintain its fitness for purpose. With new art forms, new directions in art history research, new geographic boundaries and new physical formats, there is no shortage of work to be done on an adapted art classification scheme. Using examples from the Courtauld classification scheme, this article explores some of the issues involved in dealing with an adapted classification, and charts the fluctuating relationship between the adapted scheme and its original. The author concludes that once an adapted scheme has been selected for an art library, this represents a lifetime commitment to adaptation.

This article examines some of the problems associated with the initial classification and subsequent reclassification of a specialist Fine Art library. The Library at the then Chelsea School of Art was established in the early 1960s. It was unusual, ‘being predominantly a fine art (painting and sculpture) institution, with lesser responsibilities in design.’ Most ‘off the peg’ classification schemes do not incorporate enough flexibility for the detail required by such a specific collection, but do include large sections devoted to design subjects which were unnecessary at the time. It was decided, therefore, to create a bespoke scheme for the Chelsea collection, and this was adapted several times over the years to fit in with the changing landscape of art history and art education. In January 2005, Chelsea College of Art & Design relocated to a new unified site on Millbank, merging the three very specialised libraries: Manresa Road (Fine Art), Hugon Road (Interior and Spatial Design, Graphics and Illustration) and Lime Grove (Textiles and Public Art). One of the major challenges of this relocation was to bring all the collections together under one classification scheme.

Want to know about the practical steps involved in reclassifying an area of stock? What about some recommendations before undertaking such a task? This is the article for you as it provides answers developed from lessons learned during a real experience, in 2005, when the author completed a reclassification project during a six-month temporary contract at the Surrey Institute of Art and Design.

Photography has long been a part of the Library of Congress classification tables. At the time of its inclusion, photography was not considered an art form and thus was placed in the T – Technology schedule instead of the N – Fine Arts schedule. This article will discuss various aspects of photography classification, including its history, the reasons behind and development of alternative schedules, the challenges of classifying artists’ books with a photographic basis, and the feasibility of maintaining alternative schedules with the proliferation of shelf-ready books.

UDC was used in the library of the Stedelijk Museum until 1994, but initially only for a small minority of the books: those that were neither monographs nor exhibition catalogues. With the introduction of an automated system UDC was thrown overboard, books were shelved by size, and the catalogue now works with a thesaurus (more like a keyword list) loosely based on the AAT. Most questions from customers are for artists’ names, so that is the focus of the indexing effort, even for group exhibitions involving up to 30 or 40 names, while for the Stedelijk’s own catalogues, all the artists are always indexed.