Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:21:33.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Slides and their users: thoughts following a survey of some slide collections in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2016

Valerie Bradfield
Valerie Bradfield*
Affiliation:
Academic Librarian Leicester Polytechnic
Get access

Abstract

Slides present problems of retrieval which have not always been solved by those responsible for their organisation. Each image can be seen, sought, and labelled in a variety of ways. Organisation of the slides themselves according to subject is essential to facilitate browsing, which is the normal method of selection on the part of borrowers, and which generates ideas and reveals new or alternative material. The borrowing of slides is a major problem which tends to be solved most effectively by relatively informal systems. The slide collection should be conveniently located so far as the user is concerned; even when this can be achieved the development of private collections by individuals or teaching departments should be regarded as complementing the central collection. An ‘ideal’ organisation is proposed, based on conclusions drawn from a survey of slide collections which included interviews with curators, users, and non-users (British Library R.&D. Report no. 5309, 1976)

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1977 , pp. 4 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Sayers, W.C. Berwick. An introduction to library classification. 9th ed. Grafton, 1958. p.2.Google Scholar
(2) Grove, P. ed. Bibliographic control of non-print media. ALA, 1972.Google Scholar
(3) Murray, P. ‘Some problems of an art historian in a library’. ARLIS Newsletter no. 23. 1975. 4–7.Google Scholar
(4) Freudenthal, J.R. ‘The slide as a communication tool’. School Media Quarterly vol. 2 no. 2. 1974. p. 112.Google Scholar
(5) Evans, H. and , M., and Melik, A. A Picture researchers’ handbook. David, and Charles, , 1975.Google Scholar
(6) Doran, M. and Philpott, C. ‘Chelsea School of Art-an art school library classification’. ARLIS Newsletter no.5. 1970. p.4.Google Scholar
(7) ILEA, Media Resources Centre. Unpublished discussion.Google Scholar