MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1907837057 · doi:10.1353/mis.2015.0030

Street Disorder: The Playful Disruption of Urban Art Installation

2015· article· en· W1907837057 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristine Somerville

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œMissouri review · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePublic Spaces through Art
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVisual artsStairsYardArtTerrace (agriculture)Art historyArchaeologyHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Street Disorder: The Playful Disruption of Urban Art Installation Kristine Somerville Click for larger view View full resolution Alicia Martin, Jardines, 2002, Edición de 3 ejemplares [End Page 81] My bus ride to Blue Eye High, a small 1A WPA-era school in southwest Missouri, hugging the Arkansas line, was a twenty-mile trip through a tangle of two-lane highways. Midway, at a hairpin turn in the road, was a ratty-looking clapboard house surrounded on all sides by trees, the leafless branches topped with empty beer and soda and wine bottles. The spindlier trees and bushes were laden with tiny apothecary containers, and the spikes of a rickety fence were capped with canning jars. Most days it looked junky, the work of a crazed collector, but in winter, when the ground was snow covered and shafts of sunlight shot through the trees, the ruckus on the bus would fall to a hush and the kids scrambled to one side to gaze out the fogged-up windows at a kaleidoscope of flickering, jeweled colors. A few of the boys wished out loud for their BB guns, but none of them really meant it. We were simply in awe. It was the closest most of my classmates had come to seeing a work of art. Since then I have traveled a good number of places, yet I still recall the yard of dazzling bottles when I am in a museum or encounter an outdoor art installation. While riding bikes in a nouveau hippie part of Toronto, my husband and I came across an old convertible parked along the curb. Ivy had grown up from its undercarriage, engulfing it like an automotive Chia sculpture, and the interior overflowed with a thick tangle of wild grasses and flowers. In Berlin, we passed a row of curled-toed work boots filled with pansies that lined a brick wall and a few blocks later a stand of trees, their trunks outfitted in fuzzy striped sweaters. In Barcelona I photographed dozens of graffiti-covered doors and a courtyard wall decorated with thrift-store detritus—ladder-back chairs, an end table and a cluster of family photos. And in Vancouver, rock-stacking sculptures populate the shoreline, calling to mind a primitive tribe of ellipsoidal people. I love artists who selflessly give their work over to public spaces, trusting the viewer to do what they will—adore it, ignore it, simply live with it or openly despise it. While gazing at these pieces, taking them in from all angles, I’ve overheard many conversations on the nature of art, which seems to me the artist’s intent: to create a moment of imagining, playing, questioning, considering and possibly rejecting. Installations, particularly those outside the confines of a gallery or museum, raise questions about the nature of art and its relationship to the public. Their mere presence inaugurates a discussion of what art can be and makes us ponder why, in the last several decades, the streets of many cities have become [End Page 82] Click for larger view View full resolution Florentijn Hofman, Big Yellow Rabbit, Örebro, Sweden, 2011, photo: Lasse Persson [End Page 83] Click for larger view View full resolution Florentijn Hofman, Lookout Rabbit, Nijmegan, the Netherlands, 2011, photo: Monique Zoon [End Page 84] Click for larger view View full resolution Florentijn Hofman, Fat Monkey, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2010, photo: Studio Florentijn Hoffman [End Page 85] Click for larger view View full resolution Florentijn Hofman, Rubber Duck, Hong Kong, 2007, photo: ARR laboratories for experimentation and discovery, perhaps more than the conventional artistic venues. The term “urban art installation” is broad and all-encompassing, as artists remix imagery, styles and techniques from a myriad of possible sources—pop culture, classical art, applied arts, advertising, politics, the media, technology and all manner of material culture. The pieces can be well executed or slipshod, original or derivative, minimal or cluttered—anything goes. The artist’s intent is equally varied: the work might be a form of protest, a social critique, an ironic statement, an act of subversion, a humorous prank, an expression of beauty or the assertion “I can create art, here, now.” Arguably what installation...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,921
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œMissouri reviewMême sujetPublic Spaces through ArtTravaux en français237 207