MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1907837057 · doi:10.1353/mis.2015.0030

Street Disorder: The Playful Disruption of Urban Art Installation

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

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œMissouri review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual artsStairsYardArtTerrace (agriculture)Art historyArchaeologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.008

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œMissouri reviewSame topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207