The Prejudices and Antipathies of Art: Teaching Students about Bias in the Library of Congress Fine Arts Classification During One-Shot Instruction

Abstract

From recent controversies surrounding the pejorative subject term “illegal aliens” to the former use of insulting terms like “yellow peril,” it is clear that the Library of Congress Classification System and its subject headings, one of the principal ways U.S. libraries organize information, is not neutral. Moreover, this is not a new realization, or conversation, within the library field. In 1971, Sanford Berman argued that Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) were deeply intrenched in white, male, Eurocentric power structures while advocating for change in his seminal text, Prejudices and Antipathies: A Track on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People.

But how does this apply to art researchers? And how can art librarians with instruction responsibilities intercede so their patrons know they are dealing with a biased system? Especially if they only have a one-shot instruction session in which to do it and the professor also wants students to learn how to find resources for a research project? After a brief history detailing how traditional power structures are supported and perpetuated by the Library of Congress Classification System, this article will answer these questions by investigating how the Fine Arts (N) range privileges white, male, European art over art made by women and BIPOC peoples by favoring the so-called “fine” arts of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, and printmaking over the “craft” or “decorative” arts of textiles, ceramics, glass, metalwork, and woodwork. The Fine Arts range is divided primarily by medium. While each of the “fine” arts are given their own subdivisions (NA for architecture, NB for sculpture, and so on) the “craft” art mediums are all located under one subdivision, NK Decorative Arts, giving them a lesser than status. In fact, these “craft” mediums are yet another step removed; they aren’t found until one looks at the Other Arts and Art Industries subdivision of the Decorative Arts range. “Craft” mediums are thus a subdivision of a subdivision, while the “fine” arts are treated as primary categories. Art historians have argued that the higher status traditionally given to “fine” arts in comparison to “craft” or “decorative” arts in the West, something clearly seen in the Library of Congress Classification System, is a consequence of patriarchal and white supremacist power systems.

Once this foundation has been laid, the author will discuss how they teach art history students about these inherent biases and power structures during one-shot information literacy instruction sessions while still leaving enough time to introduce students to the library resources they need to complete their research assignments. This lesson, which can be scaled from 20-30 minutes, involves introducing students to the classifications of the N range, a short video that explains how the hierarchy of “fine” art over “craft” or “decorative” art is directly related to racist and sexist power structures, and a think-pair-share activity where students reflect on what they learned and how it might affect their research. Assessment of student learning and students’ reactions to the instruction is also discussed.