MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565562173 · doi:10.3138/topia.22.159

Reframing the Invisible: On the Uses of “Bare Life” in Art

2010· article· en· W1565562173 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Milena Tomic

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvisibilityAestheticsFraming (construction)EpistemologyExhibitionPoliticsSociologyCognitive reframingPhilosophyLawArtVisual artsHistoryPolitical scienceSocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his introduction to Documenta 12, Roger Buergel designates “bare life” as a major motif, aligning it with “the radical separation between painful subjection and joyous liberation.” I suggest in this paper that this large-scale international exhibition is a prescriptive framework for Giorgio Agamben’s highly qualified juridical concept, since it may actually help to distort a concept emphasizing an element that resists representation. However, Buergel’s willingness to find a positive aspect of the state of exception is not incompatible with Agamben’s notion of a limit figure that eludes inscription in language. “Bare life” is open to art insofar as both occupy a zone of indistinction: the first designates “a being devoid of any representable identity” that avoids co-optation by the state, while the second is shifting its focus away from the object and towards the elusive spaces that can be documented but never shown. In this paper, I investigate the often ambiguous ways that the concept of “bare life” has been extended in discussions of a new politics based on “irreparable” singularity. I also explore several works of art in seeking possible alternatives to the institutional framing of “bare life,” including a performance that takes on the notion of invisibility in a somewhat literal way by eliminating photographic “evidence” of the event.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207