artbull-writing-style-and-citation

Writing Style & Citation (artbull-writing-style-and-citation)

The Art Bulletin follows The Chicago Manual of Style, using endnotes (not footnotes) for the scholarly apparatus, per the CAA Publications Style Guide. The prose must be precise about objects and arguments, and the notes and captions must be flawlessly consistent. (Verify the current Chicago edition — the Style Guide states the 17th; an older page referenced the 16th. See 待核实.)

When to trigger

• Final stylistic polish before submission
• Converting citations to Chicago notes form (endnotes)
• Formatting captions and credit lines
• A reviewer or editor flagged inconsistent or non-Chicago citations

Style & citation norms

1. Chicago notes, as endnotes. Numbered consecutively, superscript after punctuation; full citation at first mention, short form thereafter (CMOS chapter 14). Not author-date.
2. Precise art-historical prose. Name media, techniques, and conventions correctly; describe works exactly; avoid vague evaluative adjectives that stand in for analysis.
3. Captions and credit lines. Artist, italicized title, date, medium, dimensions (inches then centimeters), collection and location, and the required credit/copyright line in parentheses, exactly as the rights holder mandates (see artbull-images-and-permissions).
4. Figure references in text. Consistent "Figure n" references; figure numbers carry no period; every figure is cited in the prose.
5. Quotations and translations. Original language where wording matters, with accurate translations; consistent treatment of titles, foreign terms, and transliteration.
6. Manuscript mechanics. 12-point, double-spaced, Microsoft Word (not PDF); endnotes, not footnotes; one consistent style throughout.

Anti-patterns

• Author-date citations (The Art Bulletin uses Chicago notes)
• Footnotes instead of endnotes; inconsistent short-form citations
• Captions missing dimensions, location, or the mandated credit line
• Figures never referenced in the prose, or referenced inconsistently
• Evaluative adjectives ("masterful," "stunning") substituting for description
• Submitting a PDF (breaks the office's ability to anonymize) — submit Word

Chicago-and-caption conformance table for the CAA quarterly

The College Art Association's quarterly runs on Chicago notes and full credit-line captions, and a copyeditor (and referee) will notice every slip.

Element	Correct here	Common error	Correction
Citation system	Chicago notes as endnotes (CMOS ch. 14)	Author-date, or footnotes	Convert to numbered endnotes; full first, short after
Caption content	Artist, italic title, date, medium, dimensions (in. then cm), collection, location	Missing dimensions or location	Complete every field in the prescribed order
Credit line	The rights holder's exact mandated wording, parenthetical	Generic or omitted credit	Reproduce the wording the permission requires
Prose	Precise about media, technique, convention	Evaluative filler ("masterful," "stunning")	Replace the adjective with what is observable

Worked vignette: copyediting a passage to house style

Suppose a paragraph reads: "Caravaggio's stunning canvas (see fig. 3.) brilliantly handles light, as Smith argued (Smith 2009, 42)." Three things are wrong for this venue. The author-date parenthetical becomes a Chicago endnote, full first citation and short form thereafter. The figure reference is normalized to "Figure 3" with no period on the number, the text confirming the figure is discussed where cited. The evaluative filler — "stunning," "brilliantly" — is replaced with what is observable: the tenebrist contrast and single raking light source the argument depends on. The caption is then checked for artist, italic title, date, medium, dimensions in inches then centimeters, collection, location, and the museum's mandated credit line in parentheses.

Style objections an editor flags, and the house-style fix

• "These are author-date citations." The venue uses Chicago notes; convert to endnotes and drop the parentheticals (CMOS ch. 14).
• "The captions are incomplete." Add the missing dimensions, location, and the rights holder's exact credit line, since the permission is conditional on the wording.

Calibration anchor (hedge where uncertain)

• The apparatus rides in endnotes, which count toward the long-form word cap, so short-form consistency matters across a long article (confirm the current Chicago edition and caps against the journal's current submission guidelines); the credit line is the visible end of the image-permissions pipeline, and incorrect wording can breach the grant (artbull-images-and-permissions).

Output format

【Citation style】Chicago notes / endnotes, CMOS ch. 14? [Y/N]
【Chicago edition】confirmed on live page? (17th per Style Guide; 待核实)
【Captions】full credit lines + mandated wording? [Y/N]
【Figure refs】every figure cited, consistent "Figure n"? [Y/N]
【Prose】precise about objects, no filler adjectives? [Y/N]
【Format】Word, 12-pt, double-spaced, endnotes? [Y/N]
【Next】artbull-review-process

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — Chicago notes reference managers and manuscript tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Chicago edition (待核实), CMOS ch. 14, caption/credit-line format