Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper sets out to explore the practice of Tacita Dean and in particular the exhibition project, 'An Aside', 2005 in order to fully examine the notion of improvisation within visual art practice. Through this exhibition, Dean draws together a number of other artists that at first seem unrelated and made up of diverse objects in a deceptively provocative exhibition.
 
 By conducting a critical analysis of Dean's practice and considering her welcoming of chance, contingency, and chaos, the paper will develop a new understanding and awareness of how sagacity (defined here as "sage-like," or to have the wisdom to recognise something complex) and improvisation co-habit the creative process. By considering Dean's breadth of practice as a case study, we are provided with a number of projects that have initially 'failed,' presenting the artist with an opportunity to improvise.
 
 By bringing together 'Prisoner Pairs' (2008), 'Banewl' (1999) and 'Diamond Ring' (2002), Dean demonstrates the creative impulse and ability to respond to serendipitous discoveries and to allow the unimaginable.
 
 The paper considers the role of sagacity and its ability to be used as a framing device through which the decision-making process of the artist is revealed. Serendipity also appears to have a bearing on the artist's ability to improvise. As Dean has said, "uninvited disappointments which are unbelievably painful at the time become productive in hindsight." Finally, the paper will consider the relationship between sagacity, improvisation, serendipity, and the temporal, which is also a component within the case studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".