PhD report · Part II · Theoretical framework

Describing images
at several levels

The framework

Scope

1  Requirements

Which levels the retrieval system should handle.

2  Evaluation

The system’s ability, evaluated level by level.

Running example

Query example

Find photographsform and detailsform of the paintingform Adoration of the Shepherdsiconographic by Hugo van der Goesnon-visual, focusing on the expressionsdepicted of the shepherdsdepicted and the foreground still lifedepicted.

Wide altarpiece: the Virgin kneels before the Child in a manger; shepherds rush in from the left; two half-length prophets draw back green curtains at either edge.
One of the query’s six targets. Hugo van der Goes, Adoration of the Shepherds, ca. 1480. Oil on panel, 97 × 245 cm. Gemäldegalerie, Berlin.

A system can find “shepherds” and miss “Hugo van der Goes”. A single recall score says that it missed, not which kind of information it missed.

Existing frameworks

Framework objectives

Panofskyinterpreting works of art
Jaimes & Changindexing image collections
Hollink et al.classifying how people describe images
Yu et al.scoring critiques of artworks

Applying them to queries is the adaptation. The same levels on both sides give retrieval a shared vocabulary: each phrase of a query has a level, and an image either supports a description at that level or does not.

Framework 1 · Panofsky (1939)

Three strata of meaning

levelwhat it coversin the example
I  Pre-iconographicalwhat is factually and expressively depicted, recognised from everyday experienceA woman kneels before an infant in a manger; men rush in from the left; two bearded men draw back curtains. Haste and astonishment.
II  Iconographicalconventional themes, stories and allegories, identified through textsThe Adoration of the Shepherds (Luke 2): the Virgin, Joseph, the Christ Child; Isaiah among the prophets.
III  Iconologicalintrinsic meaning: what the work reveals about its cultureA costly, exuberant altarpiece for the urban elite of Flanders, not New Devotion asceticism.
no levelhow the image looks; facts about its makingcolour, composition, medium, painter, date, size

Of 300 queries

100%

ask for something no stratum holds: almost always the medium (96%), often the artist (60%) or a date (56%).

Framework 2 · Jaimes & Chang (2000)

A ten-level pyramid, plus non-visual facts

levelwhat it coversin the example
1–4  syntactichow it looks: type and technique, global colour and texture, local shapes, compositionoil painting; bright blue at the centre; a wide frieze framed by curtains
5–6  genericeveryday objects, people and sceneswoman, infant, shepherds, angels, ox, ass, sheaf of wheat; a stable
7–8  specificobjects, people and scenes identified by namethe Virgin, Joseph, Christ, Isaiah; the Adoration of the Shepherds
9–10  abstractwhat an object or the whole image symbolises or is aboutthe revelation of Christ, staged for the viewer
B / A / P  non-visualbiographical (author, date), associated (text, context), physical (size, location)Hugo van der Goes, ca. 1480; Gemäldegalerie Berlin; 97 × 245 cm

Of 300 queries

14%

ask for something no level holds. Built to index images; semantic levels after Shatford (1986), who derives them from Panofsky.

Framework 3 · Hollink et al. (2004)

Built from how people describe images

levelwhat it coversin the example
Non-visualcreator, title, date, period, material, place, sourceHugo van der Goes; Adoration of the Shepherds; ca. 1480; oil on panel
Perceptualcolour, shape, texture, composition, type and techniquebright blues and reds; a wide frieze; painting
Conceptual · generalgeneric objects, events, places and timeswoman, infant, shepherds, angels; kneeling, rushing; a stable
Conceptual · specificthe same, identified by namethe Virgin, Joseph, Christ, Isaiah; the Adoration of the Shepherds
Conceptual · abstractthe same, as meanings, emotions and ideasawe, haste, devotion; revelation

Of 300 queries

19%

ask for something no class holds. Each conceptual level is crossed with object, event, place, time and relation.

Framework 4 · Yu et al. (2026)

Five levels of depth in a critique

levelwhat it coversin the example
L1  visual perceptionpalette, line, composition, perspective, chiaroscuroa bright palette; the still Virgin against the rush around her
L2  technical analysisbrushwork, medium, subject and genre, style and schooloil on panel; a Nativity altarpiece; Early Netherlandish
L3  symboliciconography, symbolism, inscriptions, patronage, literary referencesthe Adoration from Luke; Isaiah; the curtains as revelation
L4  historical contextperiod, artist biography, influence, provenanceHugo van der Goes, ca. 1480, after his withdrawal to a cloister
L5  philosophicalaesthetic ideals, emotion, cross-cultural exchange, valueworldly splendour and devotion in one object

Of 300 queries

4%

ask for something no dimension holds. Made to score critiques by 15 VLMs, not to index or retrieve; L2 mixes medium with subject.

Labels on 300 queries

What the queries ask for, by framework

Share of 300 of the 372 benchmark queries asking for each kind of information (a query usually asks for several, so rows do not sum to 100%). Each whole query labelled by gemini-3.6-flash under each framework, blind across frameworks; unreviewed. Almost every query names a medium and a non-visual fact (creator, date, source); few ask at the abstract level. L1–L5 files medium under L2, counted here as depicted.

Queries and images

Each level draws on a different source

sourcelevelsin the example
the pixelsJ&C 1–4, Hollink perceptual, L1oil painting, a wide frieze, bright blue
the pixelsPanofsky I, J&C 5–6, Hollink general, L2shepherds, angels, manger, sheaf of wheat
pixels + textsPanofsky II, J&C 7–8, Hollink specific, L3the Adoration of the Shepherds; Isaiah
pixels + the culturePanofsky III, J&C 9–10, Hollink abstract, L5revelation; splendour for an urban elite
metadata onlyJ&C B/A/P, Hollink non-visual, L4Hugo van der Goes, ca. 1480, 97 × 245 cm, Berlin