A Bibliometric Study of Art Exhibition Reviews: Intersectionality, Implications, and Impact across Academic and Research Collections

Emilee Mathews*

A limited number of interlocking institutions provide career opportunities within contemporary visual art, which affects both who is seen and written about. This paper compares the proportions of recent art exhibition reviews and catalogs to artists’ race and gender, and how that is reflected in library collections. Overall, publications covered women artists, particularly White women, more frequently than men. In contrast, library collections skewed heavily toward including White men. The study’s findings are useful not only for art library collection development, but also demonstrates one way—distinctive because of its subject focus and intersectional approach—to evaluate library collections.

Artist, activist, and educator Pindell describes how the exclusivity of the “closed circle which links museums, galleries, auction houses, collectives, critics and art magazines” acts as a gatekeeping mechanism, which leads to a lack of opportunity for artists of color to show their work (1997, p. 7). Galleries and magazines perform specific roles in elevating art to the public: their endorsement confers status. Galleries represent artists, akin to agents who represent actors and other creatives. Artists contract with galleries to promote their work; the galleries, in turn, receive a portion of the sales profits. Gallery representation is crucial to many artists’ success as it provides exhibition opportunities; the resultant exposure helps artists not only sell work but also opens more career opportunities in the future (Bhandari & Melber, 2017, pp. 148–59). Magazines include content on topics they consider to be of interest, and then circulate it more widely to their readers, thus extending its impact (Allen, 2016, pp. 13–14, 15).

Art exhibition reviews are a nexus between galleries and magazines. These reviews are published in major magazines and newspapers, and they guide public understanding of artists’ work. Also, they are often the main evidence available for scholars to analyze regarding contemporaneous critical reception. Likewise, exhibition catalogs promote and document shows and are at times the only record of what works were included in a show. More highly produced catalogs include curatorial essays, interviews, installation views, provenance, bibliographies, and other significant scholarly information. As such, these publications are essential to the study of art and are a major information source collected by art libraries (Back, 2018; Jones, 1978; Jones & Scott Gibson, 1986).

Pindell has called for “A statistical study relative to artists of color and art magazine articles and reviews” to understand implications of relative gallery representation (1997, p. 7). Building on a decades-long history of activism—by Pindell and others—that holds the art world accountable to increased opportunity equity, this study focuses on the role of periodicals and catalogs in contemporary art and, by extension, on the role of libraries that collect such materials. The study builds on an existing dataset, which captures the demographics of artists represented by top tier galleries in the 2016–2017 New York art season (Case-Leal, 2017) via a census of reviews, as well as exhibition catalogs, to assess media coverage proportionality. The project measures whether there are significant differences in distribution for a particular race or gender of artist and uses intersectional approaches to detect how race and gender interrelate. This study’s investigation of the data explores the following questions: Is there a discernible difference in the artists’ shows proportion versus the frequency of reviews they receive? What approaches distinguish periodicals in their respective coverage? How do periodicals with an available library subscription model perform in comparison to those that are freely available online? Finally, do exhibition catalogs held in library collections equitably reflect the field of artistic production encompassed by these gallery shows?

By isolating and illuminating one of the links in the “closed circle” Pindell discusses, the research questions interrogate who is celebrated in the art world in publications and, in turn, explores what is captured in library collections.

Literature Review

Diversity Audits

Diversity audits of collections vary but generally measure the extent to which library collections provide access to a broad spectrum of topics and authors. In reviewing the literature, this study evaluated researchers’ reasoning regarding the importance of this form of assessment; the diversity they analyze; the subjects and formats they focus on; and further recommendations for collections.

Rationales for diversity audits encompass multiple aspects of the academic and research library mission. Pickett (2009) discussed how indexing Black studies scholarship in Web of Science not only supports faculty through tenure and promotion, with their highly used impact metrics, but also legitimizes the discipline. Vega García (2000) exposed the inability of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) members to support Latino/a studies research, demonstrating a pattern of consistent collections gaps. Manuell et al. (2019) highlighted the impact for design faculty both at their institution and more broadly across their country. Emerson and Lehman (2022) and Ciszek and Young (2010) considered students’ experience of the library in augmenting and extending student learning outcomes, as well as their overall sense of belonging. Tillay and Chapman (2019) contextualized the library’s role in the information lifecycle and concluded that libraries not capturing information limits discoverability for future creators. Stone (2020) juxtaposed the collection with student demographics at his specific institution; Ciszek and Young (2010) highlighted the increase of diverse students, faculty, and disciplines in higher education. Many authors compared trends in their collections against the U.S. census, arguing that collections should aim toward proportionality of current demographics (Emerson & Lehman, 2022; Mathews, 2021, 2022; Stone, 2020; Vega García, 2000). Some also contrasted their findings with the specific demographic characteristics of the most comparable profession (Mathews, 2021, 2022; Stone, 2020).

Studies surveyed race/ethnicity (Pickett, 2009; Vega García, 2000), gender (Ingold, 2007), or both to varying degrees (Emerson & Lehman, 2022; Mathews, 2021, 2022; Stone, 2020). Additionally, sexuality (Emerson & Lehman, 2022; Stone, 2020), nationality (Manuell et al., 2019; Stone, 2020) and publication location (Manuell et al., 2019) added dimensionality to the question of what counts as diversity in the literature. All these studies audited the researchers’ library collection across identity characteristics; however, the studies rarely provided intersectional information (i.e., indicate the authors’ race and gender simultaneously). For example, Mathews’ (2021, 2022) articles investigated women in architecture, including their race and ethnicity, meaning that the study did not capture information about men of color. To help differentiate overlapping factors of diversity, the current study uses not only race or gender in its analysis, but explicitly combines race and gender, thus creating specific categories for women of color, men of color, White women, and White men.

Many diversity audits examine content creators, as opposed to subjects, despite inherent challenges. As Price stated: “The author’s race and ethnicity among other characteristics are important factors to know to build an inclusive collection, but we have few ways to easily assess this information accurately” (2022, p. 98). This puts researchers in the position of either finding a pre-existing dataset or trying to assemble their own, which adds author bias. Emerson and Lehman (2022) also questioned the ethics of who is or is not centered in a diversity audit. Tilley and Chapman (2019) avoided the pitfalls inherent in categorizing identity characteristics by using lists of women-directed films available on the web to determine how women are reflected in their library’s DVD collection. If there were any doubts, Emerson and Lehman (2022) indicated the characteristic as unknown, particularly for sexuality and for race. Like Emerson and Lehman, Manuell et al. (2019), Mathews (2021, 2022), and Stone (2020) assembled similar methodologies which each examined websites and other information repositories wherein their subjects (i.e. the artists) were likely to self-identify race, gender, sexuality, or other identity characteristic; however, unlike Emerson and Lehman (2022), they did incorporate assumptions in their respective datasets.

Regarding article subject matter, a few studies examined diversity audits and the arts. Stone (2020) addressed play publishing and the respective demographics of playwrights. Manuell et al. (2019) evaluated their university’s monographic holdings across art and design; and Mathews (2021, 2022) studied architectural trade periodicals and their respective coverage of featured firms with women in leadership.

The literature analyzes an array of formats: monographic (Ciszek & Young, 2010; Emerson & Lehman, 2022; Manuell et al., 2019), DVDs (Tillay & Chapman, 2019); and playscripts (Stone, 2020). A few audited periodicals. Vega García (2000) investigated Latino/a studies and African American studies periodicals holdings in ARL member institutions and determined that the former lags behind the latter. Pickett (2009) found that Web of Science has a smaller portion of Black studies titles than those of women’s studies titles, despite affirming the periodicals’ eligibility compared against Web of Science’s inclusion criteria. Pickett’s study was influenced by Ingold’s (2007), which compared women’s studies journals across several key gender studies databases, and established no outstanding frontrunner given the complexity of length of coverage, full text, and level of indexing. Mathews (2021, 2022) looked at article-level subjects, rather than periodical topics or holdings.

All researchers found varying degrees of insufficiency in their library’s diverse holdings and all suggested recommendations to improve the collection’s paucity. Proposals included greater accountability for both libraries and publishers (Ingold, 2007; Pickett, 2009); increasing the amount of information known about content creators both in library authority systems as well as freely available resources such as Wikipedia (Tillay & Chapman, 2019); guidance on how policies and priorities could be shaped in future (Ciszek & Young, 2010; Emerson & Lehman, 2022); looking outside of mainstream sources (Emerson & Lehman, 2022; Stone, 2020); and providing a public-facing statement to overtly define diversity, as well as how the library plans to implement inclusion (Ciszek & Young, 2010). Emerson and Lehman (2022), Manuel et al. (2019), and Mathews (2022) recommend collaborating with the community to create and disseminate these resources and approaches.

Art Librarianship

Art librarianship professor and scholar Jones devoted several sections to finding exhibition information in her guides to art research methodology (1978, pp. 121–24; 1986, pp. 90–108). Museum and academic art librarians examined exhibition files, archives, and objects (Deutsch & McKay, 2016; Korkut, 2009; Melton, 1996; Wildenhaus, 2019), discussed the persistent significance of exhibition catalogs (Back, 2018; Kam, 2014); and made suggestions for how to incorporate into instruction and outreach (Beene et al., 2020). Fujita developed a digital bibliography to capture significant press on Black artists, including but not limited to reviews, that would not be included in article databases and print periodicals (Freeburg, 2020). Only one article explicitly addressed art exhibition reviews as its main subject: Wang and Ho’s (2017) bibliometric analysis studied 20 years’ worth of art exhibition reviews, over 40,000 from nearly 2,000 journals in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. They found that a majority were published in English, predominantly by single authors, and most within five journals (pp. 63–64).

This literature review found no other art librarianship literature connecting exhibition publications to demographic proportions. This study offers a preliminary investigation of what such a study might look like and posits a replicable method for pursuing such analysis.

Materials and Methods

The Case-Leal (2017) dataset enabled me to use already attributed information about galleries and artists to build a dataset of publications about those groups.† The original dataset used a census approach to collect demographic attributes of approximately 1,600 artists who were represented by the top 45 New York galleries. I chose this dataset because it extensively documented major galleries in New York (i.e., an art capitol), was relatively recent, had been published and undergone review, and appeared to be in a machine actionable format.‡

The dataset emerged from a class project on the arts and New York: students conducted research to measure demographic characteristics of artists represented by the chosen galleries (Vertanian, 2017). If they could not affirm race and gender through existing sources, they offered their best judgment.§ Upon publication readers wrote in to correct mistakes, establishing some degree of intercoder reliability (Vertanian, 2017). I observed some lingering inconsistencies in the Case-Leal dataset, and corrected as part of this study’s dataset (approximately 3% of artists).¶

I also adjusted demographic category choices in the Case-Leal dataset. Man and woman replaced male and female as indicators of encultured gender rather than biological sex. The race/ethnic indicators at times described region of birth rather than race or ethnicity (e.g., Middle Eastern) and had no option for mixed race. I established metadata fields to better analyze the demographic information: I added all those who did not carry the White racial attribute into a new grouping called artists of color; and last, I documented an individual’s intersectional identity, which included women of color, men of color, White women, and White men.

Publications Identified

Since the galleries were New York-based, I scoped the publications geographically as well to focus the study while still recognizing the importance of New York as both an art and publishing capital. An art librarian with over a decade of collection development and reference experience, I am familiar with art publications; for example, Art in America, Art Newspaper, ARTnews, and Artforum International all reputably purvey art information. Generalist newspapers and magazines such as The New York Times (NYT), New Yorker, and Village Voice also cover art exhibitions regularly. After consulting a list of major New York metropolitan area newspapers and testing for existence of reviews, I also included Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and New York Observer. However, in the contemporary media landscape, traditional newspapers and magazines no longer monopolize reporting on significant culture. After investigating for cogency, location, time period, and presence of reviews, I also included the arts and culture news websites Timeout NY and Brooklyn Rail, as well as art specific websites Art F City, Artnet News, Hyperallergic, and Whitehot. In all, this totaled 15 publications.

I hired a research assistant with a subject background in studio art and library science to gather information for 175 grant hours. The research assistant assembled a full list of exhibitions held by each of the selected galleries for the 2016–2017 art season—defined as September 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017—that also took place in the New York metropolitan area.**

After confirming the show’s eligibility for the dataset as described above, the research assistant searched for articles across individual titles. They accessed subscription-based newspapers through Ethnic Newswatch, Altpress Index, Access World News, as well as standalone newspaper archives such as NYT and WSJ. They keyword-searched exhibition title, gallery, and artist name, and limited date range to January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, to encompass upcoming, contemporaneous, and retrospective reviews. On average, they spent 60 minutes searching and recording information per show.

The research assistant also searched for the show in OCLC Worldcat to verify whether the gallery also produced an exhibition catalog. I vetted each potential catalog by ascertaining either in the catalog record or inspecting the bibliographic information in a physical copy of the monograph to state a variation of “this catalog was produced to accompany the show” with the corresponding artist, show, gallery, location, and dates. See Figure 1 for an example in a catalog record.

Galleries Searched

To ensure the galleries in this study’s data characterized the broad spectrum of demographic proportions and to provide flexibility with grant hour allotment, I sampled the galleries searched based on rankings provided by the Case-Leal (2017) dataset, from most to least racially and gender diverse. Through the sampling process, this study includes 16 of the original 45 galleries from the Case-Leal data.

Results

The Case-Leal data included 514 living, individual artists represented by the 16 galleries investigated in this study; 145 of those artists had shows in the 2016–2017 season, and solo shows comprised 117.†† To align artist demographic most closely to article coverage, the article dataset only included articles that featured solo shows and only reviewed that specific show. This resulted in a dataset with 133 articles.

Research Questions

This study’s research questions were: 1. Is there a measurable difference in the artists’ shows proportion versus the frequency of reviews they receive?; 2. Are there specific newspapers and magazines more or less likely to review exhibitions by women artists and/or artists of color?; 3. What changes between periodicals with an available library subscription model, in comparison to those that were freely available on the web?; 4. How do exhibition review findings compare to exhibition catalogs held in library collections?

Research Question 1: How Do Shows Compare to Reviews, Contextualized with Artists’ Demographics?

The most frequent review publishers were Artforum International, Artnet News, Brooklyn Rail and NYT. These four publications totaled 76 articles out of the 133 total articles in the dataset: 59.1% despite encompassing 26.7% of titles under review. See Figure 2 for a comparison across these top publications, with demographic characteristics for all artists who had shows in each category.

The data closely matches some proportions. For example, people of color and White artists maintained proportionality within a percentage point. However, women’s reviews, in comparison to shows, rose dramatically from 25.6 to 40.8%, and men’s reviews symmetrically decreased. White women enjoyed the greatest percentage boost; their share expanded from 21.4 of all shows to 35.5% of articles within the dataset. Regardless, the sheer numbers still align with White men: with 55.6% of the shows, and 43.4% of total reviews.

The article dataset averaged 1.1 articles per show (see Figure 3). Concentrations emerged: women’s shows are more likely to be covered than men’s of all races, with 1.8 reviews on average versus 0.9. By contrast, there was little appreciable difference across races which all adhered to the overall average. Yet, when considered intersectionally, White women had the highest average number of reviews, and White men the least, at 1.8 and 0.9, respectively; women and men of color showed smaller distributions at 1.6 and 1.0 each.

Figure 4 examines shows that received zero, one, and two reviews. Out of 117 solo shows, 47 went unreviewed in the publications investigated. White artists and men were least likely to be reviewed. By contrast, shows by people of color and women were more likely to receive at least one or two reviews. Nearly all the artists who received three or more (eight was the highest amount in the dataset) reviews for their shows were White.

While 58.5% of artists who had a show during the season received at least one exhibition review, demographics varied by 29 percentage points. Publications covered women of color most frequently, at 80% of shows reviewed, and White men the least, at 50.8%. All women averaged 78.1%, and White women 76%. By contrast, men averaged 53.5% across race and ethnicity: White men at 50.8%, and men of color 63.6%. Overall, White men are least likely to receive a review for their show in the publication dataset, with one show out of two reviewed, and women of color the most likely, with four out of five shows reviewed.

Research Question 2: Are There Specific Publications that are More or Less Likely to Review Underrepresented Artists?

Generally, the top publications covered artists of color at a rate of 1–3% less than the overall average for their shows. Few publications that covered artists of color extensively were also top publications, except for Hyperallergic; see Figure 5 for a comparison of top periodicals reviewing artists of color, with women and men of color receiving their own analysis. Art in America, Art Newspaper, ARTnews, New York Observer, Village Voice, and Whitehot did not write about artists of color at all within the dataset.

Two publications dramatically increased artist of color proportions for articles versus shows: Art F City, with 66.7%; and New Yorker, at 50%. Both publications reviewed men and women of color equally; Hyperallergic only covered men of color, and Brooklyn Rail favored men of color, whereas WSJ only reviewed women of color. By contrast, women of color had 4.3% of shows, and men of color had 18.8%. This suggests a wide range of editorial choices, some of which may be deliberate, others coincidental.

Research Question 3: How Do Periodicals with Subscription Models Perform Versus those Freely Available Online?

Contrasts surface between publications available through a library subscription versus those with web-based access (see Figure 6). Close to 20 percentage points separate articles about artists of color in web publications (30.9%) versus library-based (13.8%). Concordantly, 86.2%, or approximately nine out of every ten reviews, in library publications are written about White artists. The most striking comparisons between library and web publications are reviews about men of color, whose coverage made up one in four articles in web publications, in contrast to one in thirteen for library publications.

Albeit disproportionately low for artists of color, library publications feature women artists more frequently than men: women of color are nearly identical and White women’s proportion of reviews jumped 8%. White men also receive eight percentage points greater share in library publications (38.2% versus 47.7%). In sum, the types of periodicals available through traditional collection development models are most likely to favor White artists in their exhibition reviews.

Research Question 4: How Does Frequency of Reviews Contrast with Exhibition Catalogs?

Galleries produced exhibition catalogs for 24 out of 117 solo shows. Most catalogs accompanied White men’s shows, with an increase in catalogs for women of color (see Figure 7). Men of color’s catalogs were disproportionately low: 8.3% of catalogs versus 18.8% of shows. Yet those concentrations morph once compared to how many libraries have these catalogs per OCLC holdings: White artists’ proportions modestly rose from 86.3% to 88.7%; and while women of color’s catalogs expanded compared to shows (8.3% versus 4.3%), their coverage in library holdings are at 1.6%. Numbers reinforce the picture: out of the 24 catalogs, 1,118 have holdings per OCLC; 662 libraries own White men’s catalogs, but just 18 collected those about women of color.

Discussion and Implications for Library Collections

Several conclusions may be drawn from this investigation. Overall, publication coverage did differ across demographic characteristics. White artists received the largest proportion of shows as well as averaging a similar number of reviews per exhibition as their artists of color colleagues. Women artists showed less frequently even though they received more reviews on average. An intersectional approach revealed that proportions of women and men across race and ethnicity varied even more. Men of color surpassed their women of color colleagues in total shows whereas they received the second least reviews of any demographic category. Meanwhile, women of color received a greater average number of reviews and were the most likely to receive at least one review out of everyone in the dataset; however, fewer magazines covered their shows in the dataset compared to White artists and only four out of the 70 (5.7%) shows received a review. White men received the largest proportion of shows. Although they averaged the fewest reviews per exhibition and were the most likely to go unreviewed, they still had the overall largest amount of press coverage, with one in three articles reviewing their shows in the article dataset.

Significantly, coverage shifts dramatically between periodicals. For example, within the dataset, most of the reviews in Art F City were about artists of color whereas Art Newspaper only covered White men. Analyzing the types of access granted to the periodicals makes it clear that those with subscription models favor White and men artists, further limiting the proportionality possible within a library collection. Exhibition catalogs reinforce that tendency, heavily favoring White men’s shows, as well as their respective library holdings.

The group that had the most consistently favorable metrics across indicators was White women artists; they had higher than average reviews per show and the second largest number of shows. For example, White women and artists of color (men and women combined) had a very similar number of shows: White women had 25 shows, artists of color had 27 (see Figure 2). White women held the advantage in number of reviews per show in the article dataset (1.9 versus 1.2; see Figure 3); and had 14% more coverage in top publications (see Figure 2). Furthermore, they enjoyed substantially larger proportions in both library-based periodicals (see Figure 6) and their percentage of holdings in OCLC compared to their numbers were above any other group (Figure 7).

This study’s findings are comparable to those of Emerson and Lehman (2022) and Stone (2020) who found that women creators’ work comprised approximately one-third whereas creators of color’s percentage hovered around the 12–13% mark. Looking at the closest equivalent in this study (i.e., exhibition catalogs), monographs about women artists made up 35.1% of holdings and artists of color 10.2%. By contrast, Tillay and Chapman’s (2019) findings showed only 4% of films in their collection were directed by women.

Regarding Pindell’s call for a statistical study on the link between magazines and galleries, this study highlights how a lack of gallery shows for artists of color leads to fewer reviews, as exhibitions are needed for reviews and catalogs. Still, it is possible to work toward Pindell’s larger mission of breaking open the “closed circle” of art world establishments. Moreover, despite limitations of existing subscription models and monographic holdings, libraries can—and should—help open art information for a broader set of experiences and voices to preserve the creative record more equitably.

Libraries can apply two approaches to achieve this: enhancing traditional library collection acquisitions and expanding libraries’ expertise to include, while moving beyond, owned or licensed collections. Libraries can adjust collection development practices to proactively gather more diverse content. For monographic acquisitions, several tools can help. In art specific collection development, Worldwide Books monitors topics and regions in their database of holdings. Analogously, GOBI’s approval profiles can be set up to auto ship materials within the art and architecture LC classifications with identity-based interdisciplinary descriptors such as Black studies. Yet as Stone (2020) and Emerson and Lehman (2022) point out, moving beyond mainstream publishers’ and vendors’ stock and tools is necessary to collect a broader swath of materials about and by diverse creators. One can augment the above strategies by working with vendors who distribute publications from underrepresented areas of the world; for example, Karno Books encompasses Latin America and specializes in art and architecture. Using information from lists such as Case-Leal (2017), Tillay and Chapman (2019), or other studies can help librarians to move beyond typical acquisition models. With the Case-Leal dataset, it is possible to evaluate galleries by the proportion of diverse artists in their rosters. For example, art librarians can acquire more catalogs from galleries such as Jack Shainman and Galerie Lelong, who represent the highest concentration of artists of color and women artists, respectively.

Libraries can and should expand the number of titles in their collections to reflect a more diverse proportion of authors and topics. Furthermore, a more expansive view of libraries could serve to expand their role in discoverability beyond what is acquirable for the collection or what conforms to prevalent cataloging practices. For example, some libraries catalog open access resources, although this presents challenges in upkeep in case of cessation or migration. Stone’s (2020) Tagpacker project linked to holdings in the library catalog but enhanced metadata separately to add author identity, character identities, and other aspects to contribute useful information for researchers. Fujita’s project compiling information about African American artists through Zotero is also relevant here: as Fujita explains, this approach allows her “to capture all the more recent content that wouldn’t be in databases.” (Freeburg, 2020, para. 2).

Research guides can highlight a more expansive set of resources on a topic rather than only featuring library holdings. For example, I started a series of research guides highlighting diverse creators called #FromMarginToCenter.‡‡ These used the Libguides platform but were not limited to library resources; the guides emphasized topic-first discovery rather than organized by mode of access. Whether Wikipedia (Tillay & Chapman, 2019), Tagpacker (Stone, 2020), Zotero (Freeburg, 2020), or Libguides, curation of research resources should expand beyond what is acquirable or describable by the library, because not all research falls into these categories. They also signal the library’s public-facing commitments; can serve as a road map to increasing diverse holdings, as Ciszek and Young (2010) and Emerson and Lehman (2022) recommend; and engage with the community the library serves, to foster dialogue and empower patrons (Manuel et al., 2019; Mathews, 2022).

Conclusion

Diverse collections positively impact academic and research libraries’ ability to meet changing research and teaching needs. Such collections support faculty, students, and other researchers in key disciplines (Freeburg, 2020; Ingold, 2007; Pickett, 2009; Vega García, 2000); increase students’ sense of belonging (Emerson & Lehman, 2022); reflect the creative record more equitably (Freeburg, 2020; Tillay & Chapman, 2019); and expand collections to reflect changing demographics in the student body, the higher education sector, comparable professions, or respective countries (Ciszek & Young, 2010; Emerson & Lehman, 2022; Mathews, 2021, 2022; Stone, 2020). Librarians must work toward proactively cultivating a diverse, inclusive, and just resources for, by, and with our communities.

Acknowledgement

I wish to acknowledge the Research and Publication Committee of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, which provided support for the completion of this research. Research assistant Tacia Díaz contributed care and attention to the completion of the dataset. Thank you UIUC School of Art & Design faculty, graduate students and administrators who collaborated with me to share the research in Fall 2021. Thank you, colleagues, for advice and resources: Jessica Ballard, María Evelia Emerson, George Gottschalk, Jessica Hagman, Bill Hermann, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Stephanie Luke, Sylvia Page, JJ Pionke, Matthew J. Roberts, Lori Salmon, Janis Shearer, Scott Stone, Mara Thacker, Daniel G. Tracy, and Kelli Trei. I have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. Raw data is based on Case-Leal (2017). The dataset used for this study’s findings is available at Mathews (2023), licensed under a CCO agreement. Please attribute/cite as applicable.

References

Allen, G. (Ed.). (2016). The magazine. Whitechapel Gallery.

Back, A. (2018). The collecting practices for art exhibition catalogs at academic libraries in the United States and Canada. Art Documentation, 37(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1086/697272

Beene, S., L. Soito, & Kohl, L. (2020). Art catalogs unbound: Overcoming challenges through engagement. Art Documentation, 39(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/709449

Bhandari, H. D., & Melber, J. (2017). Art/work: Everything you need to know (and do) as you pursue your art career. Free Press.

Case-Leal, J. (2017). Art and statistics, 2016–2017. ://

Ciszek, M. P., & Young, C.L. (2010). Diversity collection assessment in large academic libraries. Collection Building, 29(4), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604951011088899

Deutch, S., & McKay, S. (2016). The future of artist files: Here today, gone tomorrow. Art Documentation, 35(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/685975

Emerson, M. E., & Lehman, L. G. (2022). Who are we missing? Conducting a diversity audit in a liberal arts college library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102517

Freeburg, J. (2020). A conversation with Simone Fujita, bibliographer, Getty Research Institute. Acid Free, 12. https://www.laacollective.org/work/simone-fujita-interview

Ingold, C. (2007). Women’s studies databases: A critical comparison of three databases for core journals in women and gender studies. Library Trends, 56(2), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2008.0001

Kam, D. V. (2014) The tenacious book, part 1: The curious state of art and architecture library collections in a digital era. Art Documentation, 33(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1086/675702

Korkut, Ş. (2009). Documenting the arts in Turkey: The Turkish Plastic Arts Archive at the Bilkent University Library. Art Documentation, 28(2), 58–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/adx.28.2.27949524

Jones, L. S., and S. Scott Gibson. (1986). Art libraries and information services: Development, organization, and management. Academic Press.

Jones, L. S. (1978). Art research methods and resources: A guide to finding art information. Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.

Manuell, R., McEntee, K., & Chester, M. (2019). The Equity Collection: Analysis and transformation of the Monash University design collection. Art Libraries Journal, 44(3), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/alj.2019.16

Mathews, E. (2021). Representational belonging in collections: A comparative study of leading trade publications in architecture. Library Resources & Technical Services, 65(3), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.65n3.96

Mathews, E. (2022). A comparison of women role models in architecture firms featured in Architectural Record and Architectural Review. Art Libraries Journal 47(4), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/alj.2022.16

Mathews, E. (2023). New York art gallery exhibition reviews and catalogs analyzed by race and gender [dataset]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-4704459_V2

McCormick, T. H., Lee, H., Cesare, N., Shojaie, A., & Spiro. E.S. (2017). Using Twitter for demographic and social science research: Tools for data collection and processing. Sociological Methods and Research, 46(3), 390–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115605339

Melton, M. (1996). Preserving love’s labors in the museum archives. Art Documentation, 15(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1086/adx.15.1.27948811

Pickett, C. (2009). Black studies scholarship and its coverage in Thomson Reuters’ “Web of Science.” Collection Management, 34(4), 260–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462670903167764

Pindell, H. (1997). A documentation, 1980–1988. In L. S. Sims (Ed.), The Heart of the Question: The Writings and Paintings of Howardena Pindell (pp. 7–19). Midmarch Arts Press.

Price, A. (2021). Barriers to an inclusive academic library collection. Collection and Curation, 41(3), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-05-2021-0018

Stone, S. M. (2020). Whose play scripts are being published? A diversity audit of one library’s collection in conversation with the broader play publishing world. Collection Management, 45(4), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2020.1715314

Tillay, R., & Chapman, C.C. (2019). A new digital method for assessing the diversity of creator identities in the Howard-Tilton Memorial Library media services DVD collection. Music Reference Services Quarterly, 22(1/2), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10588167.2019.1601421

Vega García, S. A. (2000). Racial and ethnic diversity in academic library collections: Ownership and access of African American and U.S. Latino periodical literature. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(5), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(00)00137-3

Vertanian, H. (2017, June 1). Study claims 80.5% of artists represented by NYC’s top 45 galleries are white. Hyperallergic. .

Wang, W.-M., & Ho, Y.-S. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of art exhibit reviews in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 22(1), 59–68. https://dx.doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol22no1.5

Wildenhaus, K. (2019). The possibilities of constructing linked data for art exhibition histories. Art Documentation, 38(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/702890

1. * Emilee Mathews is Head of Ricker Library of Architecture & Art at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, email: emathews@illinois.edu. ©2025 Emilee Mathews, Attribution-NonCommercial (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) CC BY-NC.

2. † Case-Leal’s website on archive.org only has .png files showing the data. It also stated that source data could be provided upon request and provided an email address, unfortunately I received a bounce back in response to my inquiry.

3. ‡ Please see the open-source dataset (Mathews, 2023) to compare information gathered in the Case-Leal dataset, against that which I provided with the help of a research assistant.

4. § “Gender and race determination is not representative of how that artist self-identifies. When available, we looked at indicators used by publications (artist’s writing, gallery statements, and press), but in the absence of this, race and gender were recorded based on how they were perceived by the reviewing author.” https://web.archive.org/web/20170617002654/http://www.havenforthedispossessed.org/

5. ¶ McCormick et al.’s (2017) findings suggest that the process of using external evaluators to determine demographic identity is fairly accurate: approximately 80% accurate for race and 90% for gender. Judged by that measure, the Case-Leal dataset outperforms expectations for accurately attributing demographic characteristics.

6. ** Some galleries have multiple locations across various metropoles (e.g., Gagosian and Hauser & Wirth) or may have temporary locations, such as participation in fairs (e.g., Art Miami Basel).

7. †† There were 114 unique artists. Within the scope, three artists had two solo shows each: Carrie Mae Weems, Meleko Mokgosi, and Roxy Paine. I use the number 117 to calculate percentages in the Results section.

8. ‡‡ https://www.library.illinois.edu/arx/about/frommargintocenter-initiative/