This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 03 October 2014, At: 02:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual Resources: An InternationalJournal of DocumentationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gvir20

Visual Quotations: Referencing VisualSources as Historical EvidenceKaty Layton‐JonesPublished online: 18 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Katy Layton‐Jones (2008) Visual Quotations: Referencing Visual Sources asHistorical Evidence, Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, 24:2, 189-199,DOI: 10.1080/01973760802042762

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973760802042762

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Visual Quotations: Referencing Visual Sources as

Historical Evidence

Katy Layton-Jones

It is widely acknowledged that hitherto undervalued forms of historical evidence such aspaintings, prints and ceramics should enjoy a higher status in historical research. The rise ofcultural history in the latter decades of the twentieth century has cemented the role of suchevidence in newly evolving historical narratives. However, the logistics of integrating visualreferences into academic writing continue to pose challenges for researchers and inhibit theuse of such material in research degrees, journal articles and books. This article addresses theneed to create a consistent and comprehensive system for referencing visual material inacademic historical research and will argue that such a process represents a crucial step inestablishing high-quality visual analysis for all periods of historical enquiry. The first half ofthe article outlines the obstacles facing historians who want to engage in visual analysis.These include: the inconsistent cataloging of visual material in archives, galleries andmuseums; the use of ‘‘transient’’ sources such as websites, where visual imagery can bedigitized in a variety of formats; the limitations of existing conventions for referencing visualmaterial, which were generally designed for art-historical analysis and are therefore notalways appropriate for historical analysis; the difficulty in referencing the type of media andattributing ‘‘authorship’’—particularly when the source includes a range of media, andfinally, the limitations placed on the number of images permitted by publishers. The secondhalf of the article suggests possible solutions for the challenges outlined, including theproposal of a new style manual to provide a consistent and extensive model for referencingvisual evidence. Only if such a model were established, could visual imagery be elevated fromthe status of the merely ‘‘illustrative’’ material to that of important and integral evidence inhistorical research.

Keywords: Footnotes; Captions; Visual Sources; References; Citation; AcademicWriting

Over recent decades, the use of visual material by academic historians has become not

only acceptable, but actively encouraged.1 In the twenty years since Roy Porter

observed that ‘‘we still have a long way to go in ‘seeing’ what people saw,’’ the

academic community has progressed a significant distance along that journey.2 As

Visual Resources demonstrates, visual collections present exciting and fruitful lines of

enquiry for historians, social scientists and heritage practitioners alike. Where visual

sources were previously limited to maps or portraits, which merely supplemented

verbal evidence, visual collections now provide the central evidence base for entire

historical arguments.3 It is a positive step for the future of academic scholarship that

visual evidence is acquiring a status commensurate with the written word, statistical

data and oral testimony.4 Yet, with these new research opportunities come attendant

Visual Resources, Volume 24, Number 2, June 2008

ISSN 0197–3762 # 2008 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

challenges and dangers. With few exceptions, the increased use of visual collections

has not been accompanied by a similarly enthusiastic attempt to develop a consistent

approach to citing and illustrating these sources in academic publications.5 Visual

Resources’ recent innovation of replacing its previous ‘‘index of keywords’’ for each

volume with an ‘‘image index’’ is one notable exception.6 However, although a

valuable example of best practice for visually rich publications, such a strategy does

not necessarily suit the requirements of historians and social scientists. The lack of

consistent guidance for historians working with visual sources means that the manner

in which visual material is cited and reproduced in peer-reviewed historical research

has evolved ad hoc, serving to perpetuate residual skepticism towards the use of visual

material in the formulation of historical arguments. Today, academic historians face

a fundamental challenge: how to increase access to and use of visual collections while

simultaneously assuring the credibility of the resulting publications. This article is a

response to that dilemma.

The first half of the article will outline the challenges that presently confront

historians who seek to reference visual collections effectively in their publications.

These include: the limitations of existing conventions for referencing visual material;

the difficulty in referencing different types of media; and the constraints placed by

publishers upon the number and format of images permitted in their publications.

The second half of the article will then suggest some possible solutions to the

challenges outlined and detail the principles that a new style manual would

necessarily follow. While the purpose of this article is not to challenge Peter Burke’s

assertion that ‘‘the uses of images by historians cannot and should not be limited to

‘evidence’,’’ in this instance it is visual material as ‘‘evidence,’’ as opposed to art,

imaginative stimuli or decoration, that is the subject of discussion.7

Part One: Image Problems

It is the premise of this article that the most pressing requirement in ensuring the

credible use of visual sources in historical research is the establishment of a

comprehensive set of conventions for citing and ‘‘quoting’’ such material. The

approved styles for the citation of verbal sources are clear and comprehensive, even if

they differ from publisher to publisher or between academic institutions. Adhering to

a standard style is a habit assumed from undergraduate level upwards and reiterated

in every writing guide and style manual. Originality is not advisable; a view reiterated

by Rowena Murray who, in her handbook aimed primarily at new writers, lists the

invention of a personal referencing style as one of the cardinal sins of academic

writing.8 Yet, this is an unavoidable misdemeanor for those who wish to draw

extensively upon visual collections in their research and publications. In the absence

of a comprehensive style manual for the quotation and citation of visual material,

authors are forced to evolve their own conventions. Rather than conforming to a

rigorous standard of analytical criteria, these necessarily reflect the author’s personal

familiarity with, or diligence when researching, visual material. Yet, if visual

collections are to be recognized as being of equal value to written evidence then they

must also receive the trappings of that status: attention to issues of authorship and

190 Layton-Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

reception; a sound understanding of the respective method of production and

distribution; and, most importantly for our purposes here, the expression of these

contextual details through a comprehensive and illuminating system of referencing. A

number of barriers currently stand in the way of such clarity, not least of which are

the myriad ways in which items can be archived, cataloged and reproduced within

collections.

Potentially rich sources of visual evidence for historians include all the

collections traditionally drawn upon by art historians, incorporating public galleries,

historic houses and private collections. In addition to these essentially ‘‘fine art’’

collections, there are many alternative archives of visual evidence that are sometimes

under-exploited by art historians, but which are of huge value to historians: national

and regional libraries, record offices, guilds and public agencies often hold large

quantities of visual artifacts. In the past these items were often difficult to locate as

they were littered throughout wider archives, indexed within generic shelf marks or

appropriated to decorate public buildings. Recent trends towards electronic

cataloging and the digitization of visual material have made such under-exploited

resources easier to identify and access, opening up entire new treasuries of historical

evidence.9 However, the resulting ‘‘digital collections’’ have created an array of

problems regarding citation.

When an image is digitized, it is common practice to allot it a new digital catalog

number or ‘‘identifier.’’10 In essence, the museum or archive has created an entirely

new collection of digital imagery.11 The result is a ‘‘layering’’ of class marks and

accession numbers that can cause confusion not only during the research process

itself, but also at the point of citation. Existing style conventions, formulated to cite

printed or manuscript sources, privilege original class marks or accession numbers

over digital reference numbers. However, in some digital collections, the original

accession number is not visible to the researcher. It is often necessary to see the

original artifact in order to establish such essential information as the artist/producer

and the original accession number. In the case of some wholly digital collections,

items may not belong to the institution hosting the electronic catalog and so viewing

the original is impossible. Researchers must therefore either cite the electronic

reference number or discount the source entirely. As more and more material, both

visual and verbal, is becoming available in digital format only, the potential for this

type of superficial referencing will only increase. Efforts have been made in recent

years to respond to the emerging need to reference digital and online material. The

latest editions of the Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Handbook include

extensive new chapters, outlining conventions specifically designed to meet the

challenge of citing web pages or online articles.12 However, few style guides provide

specific instruction on the citation of digitally accessed visual collections.

Traditionally, those historians who have sought more sophisticated and subtle

systems of referencing visual sources have looked to the discipline of art history for

inspiration. A number of guides exist that assist the art historian to navigate,

interpret and reference visual collections. Sylvan Barnet’s Short Guide to Writing

About Art is one of the most frequently referenced examples.13 Now in its ninth

edition, its enduring popularity testifies to the continuing demand for guidance in

Visual Quotations 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

this field. However, notwithstanding the value of Barnet’s recommendations, they are

not necessarily applicable or useful to the historian. Although art historians may

recognize the social and cultural context of a work, they understandably privilege the

aesthetic content of an artifact.14 For historians, the balance is usually reversed.

Historians are rarely writing ‘‘about art,’’ but rather, about the context of an object,

its owner, purpose, and its social, political or cultural testimony. As Gordon Fyfe and

John Law put it, ‘‘to understand a visualization is [thus] to inquire into its

provenance and into the social work that it does.’’15

In addition to these obvious discrepancies between the two disciplines of art

history and history, there is also the implicit question of the range of sources

examined. Broadly speaking, whereas an art historian focuses exclusively upon visual

material, thus limiting the need to differentiate between different types of source,

visual material might comprise only a small fraction of a historian’s evidence base.

Therefore, a historian’s reference system must enable the author and reader to

differentiate between subtly different types of sources that might be as closely related

as a print in a book, the same print on a piece of ceramic and a photograph of that

ceramic—all this in addition to the different verbal sources that retain their place in

historical scholarship.

Another concern when adopting art-historical conventions for historical writing

is their incompatibility with existing referencing systems in the social sciences and

humanities. Most notably, the distinctive format of the ‘‘caption’’ rarely conforms to

the accepted conventions for footnotes. Although the most diligent authors compose

their captions within a rigid and concise formula, others treat captions as discrete

passages of prose, divorced from the wider text. In historical writing, where a visual

source might be isolated within an otherwise verbal evidence base, the use of the

traditional caption format to reference a visual source could suggest to the reader

that the visual source is an appendage. When framed within an historical argument,

a visual source might thus be interpreted by the reader as an optional supplement,

contingent upon the text. At best it could be deemed a complement to the text, and

at worst as superfluous. Thus, although useful as a starting point, art-historical

conventions may not present a ready-made solution for historians. More preferable

is the development of existing referencing systems for verbal sources to encompass

visual evidence. This would not only ensure consistency between the referencing

of visual and verbal sources, but also enable visual evidence to be more easily

assimilated into historical writing and more comfortably integrated into the

discipline as a whole.

Clearly, the most efficient way to reference visual evidence is by the inclusion of a

‘‘visual quotation’’ in the form of a high-quality reproduction, accompanied by a

footnote or endnote. However, at present, historians who perceive ‘‘visual

quotations’’ or illustrations to be a central and indispensable component of a

specific argument and/or development of a research theme, face a scenario perilously

close to vanity publishing. Deemed by many publishers to be a luxury rather than an

essential, the inclusion of illustrative plates often depends upon the style of a

publication rather than an image’s contribution to the intellectual content of an

argument. As one large academic publisher recently advised potential authors:

192 Layton-Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

[B]ooks in the visual studies list require subsidies of around £1,500 to assist

with production costs … we also stipulate that all copyright permissions

are cleared by the author/editor, including any fees associated with the

process. … Colour images cannot be reproduced, even on the book cover,

without a substantial subsidy. Because illustrations add complications (and

therefore time) and expense to a book’s production, we do urge authors/

editors to use ONLY those images that are essential for the understanding

of the text.16

This is a stance common among publishers.17 Text remains paramount. It is

commonly perceived as inevitable that imagery will breed confusion and that

producing a piece of writing that is both intelligible and specific in its visual

referencing is an unavoidably expensive process.

There is no doubt that the reproduction of an image in a publication carries

attendant costs. A glance at any collection’s price list for imaging services will give an

indication of the costs involved.18 The cheapest form of reproduction, the photocopy,

is adequate for the purposes of research, but not for publication, and professional

photography or digital scanning adds higher costs, as well as time, to a project.

Although understandable in light of economic constraints, it leaves authors facing a

difficult decision regarding the inclusion of visual evidence and their inclination to

pursue similar sources in future projects. Even if an increase in online publishing

enables a relatively liberal use of illustrations at a lower cost, directing the reader

around visual sources will remain an important task for academic authors.19

In addition to reprographic costs, there is the question of image rights.

Although many institutions are willing to reduce fees for non-profit-making and

scholarly publications, few will waive them altogether and private collections, in

particular, often levy high fees for the rights to include images from their

collections.20 However, where an author is working with prints, images from

newspapers or other, mass-produced media, it is possible to ‘‘shop around’’ for

image rights. Once image rights have been obtained, there is the matter of the

formal acknowledgment. When citing written sources, footnotes and bibliography

satisfy both the legal requirement to acknowledge copyright, and the practical

requirement of traceability for the academic reader. However, this is not the case

with the visual quotation or citation, where a credit to the owner of a visual artifact

appears in addition to bibliographical details, and often in a manner stipulated by

the copyright holder rather than any universally adopted convention.21 The genteel,

if antiquated, convention of acknowledging the ‘‘kind permission’’ of the copyright

holder continues alongside otherwise concise referencing systems. Arguably the

image’s closest literary equivalent in this regard is the handwritten manuscript.

However, unlike manuscripts, images cannot be transcribed. There is often no way

to circumvent the system of patronage and permissions that burden the author and

the resultant text with lengthy acknowledgments. Still, notwithstanding the need to

acknowledge legal ownership, there is the potential to improve and simplify the

current arrangements and procedures for reproducing images, to the benefit of

authors and readers alike.

Visual Quotations 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Part Two: A Style Manual for the Future22

Guidance for referencing visual sources in historical research should meet the

requirements of today’s authors, publishers and readers, and be flexible enough to

accommodate future changes to the form and function of visual collections. For the sake

of consistency and comparability, the endorsed format for citing visual evidence should

complement the format of references to verbal sources alongside which such citations will

appear. This necessarily leads to a departure from art-historical conventions. For example,

rather than providing an artist’s full name, a reference in the proposed format would

reflect common practice within the social sciences and humanities and provide only the

first initial of the author of the source when available. Although such standardization

reduces the quantity of information provided for the reader, it aids the integration of

visual material by awarding artists/producers and authors comparable status. It also helps

to achieve concision, which in turn makes the use of visual sources more appealing to

both authors and readers. Where there may be more than one artist with the same initial

and surname, the artist or ‘producer’ in question can be identified through the other

components of the reference such as the date, collection and accession number.

Beyond establishing consistency between visual and verbal references, there are other

important components that are particular to visual sources, and for which conventions

must also be established. The most important feature currently lacking from advice to

authors is how to enable the reader to recognize instantly that the evidence cited is a

visual source, while simultaneously ensuring stylistic consistency with verbal references.

None of the most widely used style sheets enables a reader to distinguish visual material

from verbal sources in footnotes or endnotes. The consensus among institutions and

publishers, when advising authors in their referencing of visual material, is to evolve a

personal system that relies primarily upon the conventions applied to verbal material. As

a result, visual material is often referenced in the same manner as a chapter in a book, or

as a book title when it is a stand-alone work. The title of a painting, print or object

(sometimes a challenge in itself to supply) either appears in inverted commas followed

by a ‘‘main’’ title or in italics, with the artist taking the place of the author:

Harvey, Davis and Prior, ‘‘Birmingham from the South,’’ The Land We Live

In, 3 vols. (1854–6), I, 48.

In this instance, the reader might easily mistake ‘‘Birmingham from the South’’ for a

verbal description of that area, one of many such narratives published throughout the

nineteenth century. One way of removing this ambiguity would be to identify visual

material by a distinct label that is immediately recognizable to the reader. A superscript

symbol or abbreviated term preceding or following such references would immediately

distinguish it as a visual source. For example, ‘‘vsl.’’ as an abbreviation of ‘‘Visual’’:

Harvey, Davis and Prior, ‘‘Birmingham from the South,’’ The Land We Live

In, 3 vols. (1854–6), I, 48.vsl.

Such a format both conforms to established referencing systems and qualifies the

citation as pertaining to a visual source. This system of ‘‘flagging’’ a visual source

could also apply in instances when visual evidence originates from an archive that

194 Layton-Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

employs accession numbers. Currently, where images and artifacts are identified by

accession numbers or shelf marks, they are referenced like manuscripts, identified by

a specific accession number, with the option of an additional sheet number merely

compounding the confusion. For example:

G. B. Richardson and J. Christie, Arch Over Dean Street, Newcastle on Tyne

(c.1850). Fitzwilliam Museum P.44-1986.

In these instances, the ‘‘flag’’ might precede the accession number and so privilege the

significance of the source’s type above the cataloging system of the collection:

G. B. Richardson and J. Christie, Arch Over Dean Street, Newcastle on Tyne

(c.1850).vsl. Fitzwilliam Museum P.44-1986.

Beyond this basic process of distinguishing a source as ‘‘visual,’’ there exists the

scope for even more specific referencing. Perhaps the most important factor to

consider is the identification of a source’s medium. It is already common practice to

include such information when compiling captions for illustrations. However, as this

information plays little part in the verbal referencing systems that currently define the

format of footnotes and endnotes, it also remains absent from many references to

visual sources. For example, a reference to one of Manchester Local Studies Library’s

many prints might currently read:

W. H. Craig and J. Landseer, View of Manchester (1802). MLSL, m07520.

Although the title in this reference implies that it is a visual source, Craig and

Landseer’s work could easily be an oil painting, watercolor or sketch.23 The following

format would at least enable a basic understanding of the nature of the source, albeit

lacking in detail:

W. H. Craig and J. Landseer, View of Manchester (1802). (Print) MLSL,

m07520.

Of course, an author may adopt the ‘‘caption’’ format discussed above and introduce

a descriptive passage within a footnote to assist the reader in their interpretation of a

reference. For example:

Creamware soup tureen and ladle, decorated with a view titled ‘‘Castle

Street and St. George’s Crescent,’’ manufactured by the Herculaneum

factory, Liverpool (1833–36). MAG, 1975.29.

However, while such lengthy descriptions may suffice when few images are cited, they

become frustrating and tedious when they are relied upon to identify multiple

sources. It is surely more desirable to have a pre-established and concise system of

abbreviation in place, upon which any historian can call.

In addition to the basic allusions to media outlined above, there is the

opportunity to elucidate further within footnotes as to the specific nature of a visual

source. Although this would perhaps not be appropriate for all publications, this

additional tier of detail could assist historians who rely primarily upon visual

collections, particularly where multiple materials or modes of production have

Visual Quotations 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

contributed to one source. At present, conscientious authors may already include the

words ‘‘lithog.’’ or ‘‘ink on paper’’ in parenthesis after a caption, but this is not

standard practice and ‘‘print’’ or ‘‘drawing in the collection of …’’ is the more

commonly adopted format. For example, an accepted form for referencing an

illustration in a particular printed periodical might currently read:

‘‘Sheffield Court,’’ Illustrated Exhibitor, 23 August 1851, 210 (engraving).

This reference indicates that the source is a printed image. However, it does not

distinguish between the many different engraving processes that were adopted for

distinct purposes, audiences and markets. In this publication alone, two different

techniques were employed: wood engraving and copper-plate engraving, and which

one was used depended upon the perceived status of the subject and purpose of the

plate. A preferable form of reference might detail not only the general media, but also

the mode of production, relative size of the image, and combination of materials. In

the interests of economy, this information could be codified. For example:

‘‘Sheffield Court,’’vsl. Illustrated Exhibitor, 23 August 1851, 210. (f/p, wE).

Here, ‘‘vsl.’’ indicates that the source is visual, ‘‘f/p’’ indicates it is a full-page image

within the periodical, and ‘‘wE’’ indicates that it is a wood engraving, within the

broader class of engravings (E). Other examples might read:

‘‘Altarpiece by G. Geerts of Louvain,’’vsl. Illustrated Exhibitor, 16 August

1851, 181. (cover, wE).24

G. Greatbach, after W. Tomlinson, ‘‘Pianoforte,’’vsl. in J. Tallis, Tallis’s

History and Description of the Crystal Palace and the Exhibition of the

World’s Industry in 1851 (London, 1851). (f/p, plate, sE).25

M. Billing, Charles Cammell and Company’s Cyclops Works (1858).vsl.

SLSL, s09740. (ad., cLithog., col.).26

Clearly, the physical characteristics of an image or artifact can be expressed in varying

detail. A source that is central to a historical argument should, just like its verbal

counterpart, be referenced with as much contextual detail as necessary to enable the

reader to follow, interpret and evaluate the argument presented. Of course, the use of

abbreviations such as f/p and h/p are adopted from existing bibliographic

conventions, and are only useful where an image is sourced from a publication.

When the visual evidence does not originate from such a source, as in the case of

ceramics, stand-alone prints or sculptures, it may be preferable to resort to providing

measurements in full. For example:

G. Greatbach, after W. Tomlinson, ‘‘Pianoforte,’’vsl. in J. Tallis, Tallis’s

History and Description of the Crystal Palace and the Exhibition of the

World’s Industry in 1851 (London, 1851). (12614 cm, plate, sE).27

In his comprehensive Encyclopedia of Ephemera, Maurice Rickards included

measurements for sources in both metric and imperial scales:

196 Layton-Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Advertisement for Harness Electropathic Belts, Oxford Street, London.

Chromolithographed by Pickersgills & Lightowler, Leeds. 2206140 mm (8

5/865K inches).28

Providing dimensions in two different systems of measurement is perhaps excessive,

particularly when economy of expression is desirable. However, Rickards’ citations

provide a valuable demonstration of how even the most diverse range of visual

sources can be combined and comprehensively and consistently referenced within a

single publication.

Conclusion

As this article has hopefully demonstrated, visual sources, their accurate identifica-

tion, description and ‘‘quotation’’ are as critical to pioneering and persuasive

historical scholarship as rigorous research, objective analysis and bibliographical

veracity. Yet, while references to verbal and statistical evidence benefit from

increasingly subtle and comprehensive style manuals, which reflect every distinction

between those sources’ origins, formats and locations, visual citations continue to be

impoverished by the lack of a similarly inclusive set of conventions.

The suggestions and examples provided in this article are not intended to

represent an exhaustive solution to this deficiency in existing referencing systems.

However, it is hoped that they demonstrate how attention to accuracy and detail in

visual references can inform readers as to the very nature of a source’s production,

circulation and reception. Further abbreviations and codifications could potentially

be developed to reference every format, medium and genre of visual artifacts,

opening up ‘‘visual histories’’ to more critical and rigorous assessment and, therefore,

greater reliability and prestige within the discipline.

The coming decades promise further developments in the accessibility of visual

collections and the potential for wider dissemination of visual material, be it in

the context of a digital archive, online exhibitions or online publishing. Yet, without

the provision of a comprehensive and universal referencing system to reflect the

particularity of visual sources, the ‘‘visual literacy’’ of historical scholarship will

remain compromised and visual collections under-exploited by the academic

community.29 Only when such a resource is successfully realized and employed will

visual evidence sit comfortably alongside verbal, statistical and oral testimonies as a

wholly credible and defensible historical source in its own right.

KATY LAYTON-JONES is a Research Associate at the University of Liverpool and

Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre for Urban History, University of Leicester.

Having completed a PhD in British history at the University of Cambridge, she is now

engaged on an ESRC-funded research project examining the historic significance of

urban parks and open spaces. A visiting lecturer at City University, she has recently co-

edited New Perspectives in British Cultural History (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing, 2007) and is the Reviews Editor for Urban History. Her forthcoming

publications include Places of Health and Amusement (Swindon: English Heritage, 2008);

Visual Quotations 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

and ‘‘The Synthesis of Town and Trade: Visualising Provincial Urban Identity 1800–

1851,’’ Urban History 35, no. 1 (2008).

[1] Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), ‘‘Vision Strategy for 2007–2012’’

(www.ahrc.ac.uk/images/strategic_plan_2007-2012.pdf), 4; Leverhulme Trust,

www.leverhulme.ac.uk/about/introduction (accessed 23 August 2007).

[2] Roy Porter, ‘‘Seeing the Past,’’ Past and Present 118 (1988): 186–205.

[3] See Vic Gatrell, The City of Laughter: Sex and Satire in Eighteenth-Century London

(Atlantic: London, 2006); Cindy McCreery, The Satirical Gaze: Prints of Women in

Late Eighteenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Geoff

Egan, Material Culture in London in an Age of Transition: Tudor and Stuart Period

Finds c.1450–c.1700 from Excavations at Riverside Sites in Southwark (London:

Museum of London Archaeology Service, 2005); John M. Schwartz and James R.

Ryan, eds., Picturing Place: Photography and the Geographical Imagination

(London: I.B. Tauris, 2003); Katy Jones, ‘‘The View from the Viaduct: The

Impact of Railways upon Images of English Provincial Towns, 1830–1857,’’ in

Rosalind Crone, David Gange and Katy Jones, eds., New Perspectives in British

Cultural History (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007), 8–21.

[4] For evidence of this new-found status see Ivan Gaskell, ‘‘Visual History,’’ in Peter Burke,

ed., New Perspectives on Historical Writing (University Park, PA: Penn State University

Press, 2nd ed., 2001), 187–217; and Stephen Bann, ed., The Inventions of History: Essays

on the Representations of the Past (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990).

[5] The most notable exceptions apply to guides for analyzing and citing paintings, the

particular study of which evolved as a distinct discipline prior to the expansion of

cultural history to incorporate the same sources. See Sylvan Barnet, A Short Guide

to Writing About Art (Boston: Little Brown, 1985).

[6] ‘‘Image Index,’’ Visual Resources 23, no. 4 (2007): 411–9. See also Christine L.

Sundt’s explanation of this change in ‘‘Editorial: The Photograph as Document,’’

Visual Resources 23, no. 4 (2007): 287.

[7] Peter Burke, Eyewitnessing: The Use of Images as Historical Evidence (London:

Reaktion, 2001), 13.

[8] Rowena Murray, Writing for Academic Journals (Maidenhead: Open University

Press, 2005), 43.

[9] For examples of digitization projects, online collections and online public access

catalogs (OPACs) see: ‘‘Picture Sheffield’’ image collection, Sheffield Local Studies

Library, Sheffield Central Library; Manchester Local Image Collection, Archives

and Local Studies, Manchester Central Library; The John Johnson Collection of

Printed Ephemera, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford; ‘‘Collage,’’ Guildhall

Library, Corporation of London; and ‘‘Port Cities,’’ a collaborative website that

unites visual collections from Bristol, Hartlepool, Liverpool, London and

Southampton online: www.portcities.org.uk (accessed 14 August 2007).

[10] See http://www.images.manchester.gov.uk/ (accessed 2 November 2007).

[11] The ‘‘House of Images’’ databases from Manchester and Sheffield local studies

libraries are good examples of this process of digitization and the allocation of new

digital catalog numbers.

[12] Chicago Manual of Style 15th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003),

696–8, 699–700, 702–3, and Joseph Gabaldi, MLA Handbook for Writers of

198 Layton-Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Research Papers 5th ed. (New York: Modern Languages Association, 1999), 178–

202.

[13] Barnet, A Short Guide to Writing About Art (see n. 5 above).

[14] Gaskell, ‘‘Visual History,’’ 187–8.

[15] Gordon Fyfe and John Law, eds. Picturing Power: Visual Depiction and Social

Relations (London: Routledge, 1998), 1.

[16] Memorandum to authors and editors for Ashgate’s ‘‘Visual Studies Publishing

Programme’’ (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).

[17] Chicago Manual of Style, 133.

[18] For examples of current pricing structures see the British Library at www.bl.uk/

imaging/prices (accessed 1 September 2007); Manchester City Galleries at

www.manchestergalleries.org/shop-and-cafe/picture-library (accessed 1 Septem-

ber 2007); and The Royal Collection at www.royalcollection.org.uk (accessed 28

August 2007).

[19] Online multimedia companions have emerged as a potential solution to the high

typesetting and reprographic costs associated with illustrated publications. Urban

History, a peer-reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press, is

currently experimenting with the possibilities afforded by multimedia compa-

nions. See www.journals.cambridge.org/fulltext_content/supplementary/urban_

icons_companion (accessed 28 August 2007).

[20] In some instances, procuring an original can prove cheaper than purchasing the

rights from a collection. Single images from publications such as the Illustrated

London News frequently appear on internet auction sites, and are more affordable

than purchasing entire volumes.

[21] A number of style manuals suggest formulae for acknowledging the beneficence of

copyright holders, but stipulate that such conventions are only to be used in the

absence of instructions from the institution or owner involved. See Janice R.

Walker and Todd Taylor, The Columbia Guide to Online Style (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1998), 487–8, and the Oxford Guide to Style (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2002), 233.

[22] The examples given in this section reflect the Chicago Manual of Style’s

conventions for verbal footnotes. However, they could be reformatted to reflect

the style guide of any publisher or institution.

[23] In this example the collection has been abbreviated from Manchester Local Studies

Library to MLSL. If abbreviations are used then a key must always be provided.

Without this form of abbreviation, the reference would be even less concise and

labored.

[24] Wood-engraved cover illustration.

[25] Full-page, steel-engraved plate.

[26] Color, chromolithographed advertisement.

[27] Full-page, steel-engraved plate.

[28] Maurice Rickards, The Encyclopedia of Ephemera (London: The British Library,

2000), 131.

[29] James Elkins, Visual Studies: A Skeptical Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2003),

125–8.

Visual Quotations 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 02:

09 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014