Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Jo Spence’s work contributed to the multiple, yet marginalized voices using documentary photography as a critique of modernism in the context of socialist-feminism and the New Left in England in the 1970s. Spence and her primary collaborator, Terry Dennett, intentionally created and shaped their archive in London in the 1970s and 1980s as a resource for collaborative action—an ‘alternative institution’ that grew out of the 1960s and was characterized by political and ideological forms of opposition to dominant culture. While archives traditionally function as places where documents from the past go to be stored, preserved, and sometimes forgotten, they also legitimize dominant sets of values regarding what does, or does not, constitute the historical record. The central concerns of my dissertation ask how social discourses of the Art world, namely commercial galleries and institutional museum practices, have muted the radical impulse behind the photographic work of Spence, Dennett, and their collaborators. Additionally, it poses the question of whether formal archiving can preserve the anti-institutional motivation in Spence’s radical documentary photography, and if so, what strategies of engagement are necessary for doing so? Beyond mere preservation, my methods of archival approach demonstrate how archival work can be utilized to rearticulate the polemic in Spence’s work in repositories holding elements of her Memorial Archive. The discursive context and function behind maintaining a repository in Spence’s name was to preserve and provide access for future political work. Therefore, archiving its material must account for and decipher the polemic contours of the material and render it legible in the institutions holding the archive today. By examining two key projects as case studies as well as two elements of the largest repository of the Jo Spence Memorial Archive at The Image Centre at Toronto Metropolitan University, my dissertation considers not only photography’s place within the polemics of 1970s and ‘80s Britain, but also whether its impact endures. First, it accounts for what made Spence’s practice radical; that is, how she borrowed from the worker photography movement of the 1920s and ‘30s to situate her work between the realms of socialist-feminist activism and Art. Secondly, my dissertation underscores the critical importance of understanding that Spence was not a self-proclaimed ‘artist’ first; she was initially known as a professional studio photographer in the 1960s and early 1970s, then an activist, educator, writer, community organizer, and socialist-feminist in the 1970s and ‘80s. Only over the last two decades has she become widely known in the Art world, especially for her phototherapy work made in the 1980s—work made with numerous individuals who collaborated with her in various ways, circulating work that was made for multiple uses in various innovative formats. By extension, the third aspect of my dissertation addresses Spence’s work in its contemporary institutionalized contexts and highlights that once institutionalized, the tactile, hands-on use value of it is lost to the logic of museum protocol, institutional handling, and preservation practices. This aspect, therefore, mobilizes methods of archival engagement that function as a strategy to tip the scale that gives disproportionate weight to her work as newly discovered within categories of feminist Art and ‘postmodernism.’
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,028 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,007 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».