MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2034405512 · doi:10.1353/mdr.2012.0021

Social Works: Performing Art, Supporting Publics (review)

2012· article· en· W2034405512 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sonja Arsham Kuftinec

Notice bibliographique

RevueModern Drama · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueTheatre and Performance Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDramaContext (archaeology)ArtContemplationSociologyAestheticsMedia studiesVisual artsHistoryEpistemologyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Social Works: Performing Art, Supporting Publics Sonja Arsham Kuftinec Shannon Jackson. Social Works: Performing Art, Supporting Publics. New York: Routledge, 2011. Pp. 320, illustrated. $115 (Hb); $35.95 (Pb). Shannon Jackson’s third book, Social Works, provocatively questions the limits of Modern Drama. Jackson’s case studies, derived predominantly from the post-1970s art world, seem at first to have little to do with either “drama” or the “modern.” Yet, Jackson’s study of aesthetically arresting social performances and their support systems, at the intersection of theatrical and performance art, illuminates the very grounds on which we perceive modern drama. Jackson concretizes this disciplinary situatedness in her prologue, via two performances of Beckett’s Rockaby. The first, attended to within a theatrical frame grounded in expectations of action, seemed, according to Jackson, to render the play’s iconic rocking and scripted pauses with painful slowness. Twenty years later, in a gallery context calling for more measured contemplation, the rocking seemed to Jackson “scandalizingly fast” (3). Jackson’s anecdotal reflection also instantiates a rhetorical ploy, threaded throughout the book, of animating the socially and historically situated self. She appears variously as Mother, Daughter, and spectator, as well as public university citizen and scholarly interlocutor. Though the single-authored [End Page 271] monograph remains a mark of academic productivity, Jackson carefully iterates the support system of students, colleagues, artists, family, funding, and time that allows such productivity to materialize. Jackson’s generosity extends to her scholarly style. While unflinching in pointing up critical contradictions, she takes care to reflect on the conditions that produce such contradictions, to cite other perspectives generously (including those of the artists investigated), and to situate herself within a network of disciplinary practices and theories steeped in understandings of materialist feminism, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, critical race theory, neo-liberalism, and labour and performance studies (among others). Jackson locates her explorations of work in the United States and Europe within the “social turn” of “post-studio” arts and “postdramatic theater” (a phrase credited to Hans-Thies Lehmann, 2). Rather than accepting these terms at face value, however, she traces their respective genealogies. Jackson turns to the Frankfurt School, for example, to ground seminal arguments about theatrical modernity as well as to remind us of differing critical perspectives on Brecht from Benjamin, Adorno, and Lukács. Brecht then becomes a theatrical touchstone for reconsidering defamiliarizing aesthetic tactics and resonant political theories of antagonism and rupture. Duchamp and his “ready-mades” serve a similar function as an art world touchstone of institutional critique. Jackson’s main scholarly intervention, however, is to provide a critical framework for performance practices in which trajectories of postdramatic theatre and post-studio art coincide, particularly those that bring together aesthetic and social provocations. She encourages a rethinking of such provocations as necessarily opposed to civic support, deploying a vocabulary of interdependence to counter easy assumptions about artistic and social autonomy or simplistic renderings of power hierarchies. These arguments unfold over seven chapters, a prologue, and epilogue through vividly rendered case studies. Chapter organization models the book’s trope of interdependence, with chapters building upon and referencing each other, while each retains enough of the book’s core arguments to function semi-autonomously. “Performance, Aesthetics, and Support” introduces key terms and arguments with a focus on “social practices,” theatricality, and the art world’s scepticism toward both. Particular attention is paid to the genealogy of “support,” as the discussion ranges from the function of the wall in museums, to backstage theatrical technicians, to Marxist base/superstructure models of economic analysis. “Quality Time” indexes arts-based social practices through debates around relational aesthetics and radicality in, respectively, the arts and community-based theatre worlds. Thus, Claire Bishop’s and Sarah Brady’s controversial articles about arts and theatre, respectively, are placed in relation to each other and to two contrasting [End Page 272] social artists – Shannon Flattery and Santiago Sierra – who differently deploy community-based storytelling and embodiment in their artwork. The next two chapters take up art works that precede the historiographically marked “social turn” in the arts. “High Maintenance” elegantly brings together feminist and materialist analysis to recount Mierle Laderman Ukeles’s performance of cleaning...

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,030
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,099

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0300,007

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 Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueModern DramaMême sujetTheatre and Performance StudiesTravaux en français237 207