PHENOMENOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION BEYOND THE FLESH
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the ethical questions surrounding the phenomenological approach to interpretation in art history. It addresses contemporary art, from postminimalist sculpture to installation. Although the risk of phenomenology is that it merely confirms and reproduces the viewer's perceptual expectations, in fact, on a deeper level, the notion of the ontological intertwining of the viewer and the artwork demands a receptive stance in the face of art. Through an investigation of the notions of embodiment, intentionality, and mode of confrontation, I suggest that phenomenology not only mediates a trenchant understanding of the perceptual experience of the artwork, it is predicated on an acknowledgement of the artwork's alterity from interpretation. In this way, it invites a consideration of the linguistic malleability implicit in the fleshly chiasm that binds the viewer to the artwork.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it