MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981533224 · doi:10.3138/ctr.162.010

Chew, Drink, and Spit: A Book Review

2015· review· en· W1981533224 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Didier Morelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformance artArt schoolEmbodied cognitionPerforming artsArtPerformance studiesVisual artsPaintingContemporary artThe artsArt historyAestheticsSociologyVisual arts educationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The performance entitled Chew, Drink and Spit: A Book Review took place in a studio in Vancouver, British Columbia, as a response to the 2012 publication of The Last Art College (MIT Press) by Canadian conceptual artist Garry Neil Kennedy. An urgent need was felt to address the typical ahistorical and nostalgic fashion with which Mr. Kennedy presented “his” period of conceptual art and pedagogy at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NSCAD) as the height of Canadian conceptualism and arts-based education. The action combined performance and book review. Sitting at a table, each page where Garry Neill Kennedy’s name appeared in his book was partially chewed and spitted back into a peanut butter container labelled “Last Art College.” This article explores whether the protesting body, as it consumed and regurgitated the “Last Art College,” can be read and interpreted as an embodied epistemology. Can flesh and embodied critique offer a new and different dynamic perspective on the “Last Art College” as the epitome of art serving as capital in a market-driven profession? Chew, Drink and Spit: A Book Review will serve as a point to discuss questions of historical critique within the socio-political and economic framework of the art school and university.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207