International Journal on Digital Libraries

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 367–383 | Cite as

Image libraries and their scholarly use in the field of art and architectural history

  • Sander MünsterEmail author
  • Christina Kamposiori
  • Kristina Friedrichs
  • Cindy Kröber


The use of image libraries in the field of art and architectural history has been the subject of numerous research studies over the years. However, since previous investigations have focused, primarily, either on user behavior or reviewed repositories, our aim is to bring together both approaches. Against this background, this paper identifies the main characteristics of research and information behavior of art and architectural history scholars and students in the UK and Germany and presents a structured overview of currently available scholarly image libraries. Finally, the implications for a user-centered design of information resources and, in particular, image libraries are provided.


Image libraries LIS Art and architectural history User studies Scholarly practices 



Parts of the research activities described in this paper were funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01UG1630).


  1. 1.
    Durran, J.: Art History, Scholarship and Image Libraries: Realizing the Potential of the Digital Age (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, C.J.: Art history: a guide to basic research resources. Collection Building 28(3), 122–125 (2009). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaudoin, J.E., Brady, E.: Finding visual information: A study of image resources used by archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists. Art Doc. 30(2), 24–36 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mason, H., Robinson, L.: The information-related behaviour of emerging artists and designers. J. Doc. 67(1), 159–180 (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elam, B.: Readiness or avoidance: E-resources and the art historian. Collect. Build. 26(1), 4–6 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beaudoin, J.: Image and text: a review of the literature concerning the information needs and research behaviors of art historians. Art Doc.: J. Art Libr. Soc. N. Am. 24(2), 34–37 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaudoin, J.E.: An Investigation of Image Users across Professions: A Framework of Their Image Needs, Retrieval and Use. Drexel University, Philadelphia (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniela Pscheida, C.M., Herbst, S,. en Albrecht, S., Köhler, T.: Use of Social Media and Online-based Tools in Academia. Results of the Science 2.0-Survey 2014. Dresden (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Solla Price, D.: Little Science: Big Science. Columbia Univ. Press, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gumpenberger, C., Sorz, J., Wieland, M., Gorraiz, J.: Humanities and social sciences in the bibliometric spotlight—Research output analysis at the University of Vienna and considerations for increasing visibility. Res. Eval. 1–8 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nederhof, J.A.: Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics 66(1), 81–100 (2006). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zorich, D.M. Transitioning to a Digital World. Art History, Its Research Centers, and Digital Scholarship. The Samuel H. Kress Foundation and the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media George Mason University (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Long, M.P., Schonfeld, R.C. Supporting the Changing Research Practices of Art Historians. Ithaka S + R (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rose, T.: Technology’s impact on the information-seeking behavior of art historians. Art Doc.: J. Art Libr. Soc. N. Am. 21(2), 35–42 (2002). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heusinger, L.: Applications of computers in the history of art. In: Hamber, A., Miles, J., Vaughan, W. (eds.) Computers and the History of Art, pp. 1–22. Mansell Pub, London and New York (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kohle H (2013) Digitale Bildwissenschaft. GlückstadtGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drucker, J.: Is there a “Digital” art history? Vis Resour. 29(1–2), 5–13 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bentkowska-Kafel, A.: Debating digital art history. DAH-J. 1, 50–64 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tenopir, C., King, D.W.: Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. D-Lib Mag. 14(11/12), 1–13 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hemmig, W.: An empirical study of the information-seeking behavior of practicing visual artists. J. Doc. 65(4), 682–703 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bakewell, E., Beeman, W.O., Reese, C.M., Schmitt, M.: Object, Image, Inquiry: The Art Historian at Work. Getty Art History Information Program, Santa Monica (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cobbledick, S.: The information-seeking behavior of artists: exploratory interviews. Libr. Q.: Inf. Community Policy 66(4), 343–372 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Visick, R., Hendrickson, J., Bowman, C.: Seeking Information During the Creative Process-A Pilot Study of ArtistsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Long, M.P., Schonfeld, R.C.: Preparing for the future of research services for art history: recommendations from the Ithaka S + R report. Art Doc.: J. Art Libr. Soc. N. Am. 33(2), 192–205 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bates, M.J., Wilde, D.N., Siegfried, S.: Research Practices of Humanities Scholars in an Online Environment: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 3 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hersey, D., Calhoun, S., Crowley, G., Krentz, J., Grafe, M.: Understanding the Research Practices of Humanities Doctoral Students at Yale University. Yale University, Yale (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palmer, C.L., Teffeau, L.C., Pirmann, C.M.: Scholarly Information Practices in the Online Environment. Themes from the Literature and Implications for Library Service Development. OCLC Research, Dublin (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Unsworth, J. Scholarly primitives: What methods do humanities researchers have in common, and how might our tools reflect this? In: Symposium on humanities computing: formal methods, experimental practice (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ross, S. Expert Forum on Scholarly Activity and Information Process, June 2010. Athens (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., Gavrilis, D.: Understanding the Information requirements of arts and humanities scholarship. Int. J. Digit. Curation 1(5), 18–33 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pertsas, V., Constantopoulos, P. Scholarly ontology: modelling scholarly practices. Int. J. Digit. Libr. (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wikipedia (2018) Scientific Method. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  33. 33.
    Kemman, M., Kleppe, M., Scagliola, S. Just Google it. Digital research practices of humanities scholars. In: Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress 2012 Studies in the Digital Humanities Sheffield: HRI Online (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gregory, T.R.: Under-served or under-surveyed: the information needs of studio art faculty in the Southwestern United States. Art Doc.: J. Art Libr. Soc. N. Am. 26(2), 57–66 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Warwick, C.: Studying users in digital humanities. In: Warwick, C., Terras, M., Nyhan, J. (eds.) Digital Humanities in Practice, pp. 1–21. Facet Publishing, London (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Given, L.M., Willson, R. Information technology and the humanities scholar: documenting digital research practices. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2018)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Makri, S., Warwick, C.: Information for inspiration: Understanding architects’ information seeking and use behaviors to inform design. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(9), 1745–1770 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shneiderman, B.: Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. Spec. Issue Hum.-Comput. interact. New millenn. Part 1 7(1), 114–138 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huvila, I. The ecology of information work—A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organisation. Åbo (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Greenhalgh, M.: Art History. In: Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., Unsworth, J. (eds.) Α Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwell, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Challener, J.: Information-Seeking Behavior of Professors in Art History and Studio Art. Master’s Research Paper (1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grindley, N.: What’s in the Art-Historian’s Toolkit? A Methods Network Working Paper. AHRC ICT Methods Network (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kamposiori, C., Benardou, A.: Collaboration in Art Historical Research: Looking at Primitives. Kunstgeschichte Open Peer Rev. J. (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., Welsh, A.: Enabled backchannel: conference Twitter use by digital humanists. J. Doc. 67(2), 214–237 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Quan-Haase, A., Martin, K., McCay-Peet, L.: Networks of digital humanities scholars: the informational and social uses and gratifications of Twitter. Big Data Soc. 2(1), 1–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bradfield, V.J.: Slide Collections: A User Requirement Survey. Library, Leicester Polytechnic, Leicester (1976)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Challener, J. Information-Seeking Behavior of Professors of Art History and Studio Art (1999)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sweetnam, M.S., Agosti, M., Orio, N., Ponchiam, C., Steiner, C.M., Hillemann, E.-C., Siochrú, M.Ó., Lawless, S.: User needs for enhanced engagement with cultural heritage collections. In: International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, 2012. Springer, pp 64–75Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, p. 6. Beltz Deutscher Studien Verlag, Grundlagen und Techniken (2008)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Friedrichs, K., Kröber, C., Bruschke, J., Münster, S.: Creating suitable tools for art and architectural research with digital libraries. In: Münster, S., Friedrichs, K., Niebling, F., Seidel-Grzesinska, A. (eds.) Digital Research and Education in Architectural Heritage. 5th Conference, DECH 2017, and First Workshop, UHDL 2017, Dresden, Germany, March 30–31, 2017, Revised Selected Papers. Springer (2018)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mai, J.-E.: Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley (2016)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kuhlthau, C.C.: Inside the search process: information seeking from the user’s perspective. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 42(5), 361 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ellis, D.: A behavioural model for information retrieval system design. J. Inf. Sci. 15(4–5), 237–247 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., Wang, J.Z.: Image retrieval: ideas, influences, and trends of the new age. ACM Comput. Surv. 40(2), 1–60 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Besser, H.: Visual access to visual images: the UC Berkeley Image Database Project. Libr. Trends 38(4), 787–798 (1990)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hastings, S.K.: Evaluation of image retrieval systems: role of user feedback. Libr. Trends 48(2), 438 (1999)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pisciotta, H., Brisson, R., Ferrin, E., Dooris, M., Spink, A.: Penn State visual image user study. D-Lib Mag. 7(7/8), 169–196 (2001)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Matusiak, K.K.: Towards user-centered indexing in digital image collections. OCLC Syst. Serv.: Int. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 22(4), 283–298 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lopatin, L.: Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines: a survey of the literature. Libr. Hi Tech 24(2), 273–289 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Giral, A.: Digital image libraries and the teaching of art and architectural history. Art Libr. J. 23(04), 18–25 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R.C., Wulfson, K.: Ithaka S + R| Jisc| RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2012. Ithaka S + R, New York. Retrieved 30 April 2014 (2013)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gibbs, F.: Building Better Digital Humanities Tools: toward broader audiences and user-centered designs. DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 6(2) (2012)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Elaine Menard, M.S.: Digital image access: an exploration of the best practices of online resources. Libr. Hi Tech 32(1), 98–119 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    McDonald, S,, Tait, J.: Search strategies in content-based image retrieval. In: SIGIR ‘03 Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp 80–87 (2003)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Albertson, D.: Synthesizing visual digital library research to formulate a user-centered evaluation framework. New Libr. World 116(3/4), 122–135 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mösch, K.: Exemplarische Sicherung deutscher Bildgeschichte 1945–1960. Bedeutung des Massendigitalisierungsprojekts der Deutschen Fotothek (SLUB Dresden) (2009)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nowak, S., Rüger, S.: How reliable are annotations via crowd sourcing: a study about inter-annotator agreement for multi-label image annotation. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Information, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wieser, C.: Building a semantic search engine with games and crowdsourcing. Dissertation, LMU München (2014)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D. Handbook of Usability Testing. How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley, Crosspoint Boulevard (2008)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic Press, Salt Lake City (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    European Union (2008) Now Online: “Europeana”, Europe’s Digital Library (IP/08/XXX). BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sander Münster
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christina Kamposiori
    • 2
  • Kristina Friedrichs
    • 3
  • Cindy Kröber
    • 1
  1. 1.Media CenterTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.University College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations