After Brecht: the Impact (Effects, Affects) of Intermedial Theatre
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 addresses claims made about the impact of intermedial theatre with reference to examples of contemporary practice. In particular it makes references to Brecht in this context and differentiates between Brechtian politics and aesthetics. The professed aim of intermedial practitioners to dislocate the bearings of experiencers of their work and to afford new perceptions by means of a radical play between mediums appears to resonate, at the level of principles of composition, with Brecht’s “radical separation of the elements.” However, at the level of politics, Brecht’s drama sought a broader understanding of isolated individuals by inviting audiences to see their experience in connection with a total historical process. But, regarding the Marxist trajectory in which Brecht’s practice was located, the context changed markedly post-1968, and beyond recognition post-1989. The article thus proposes that a new formulation is required of the impacts of new perceptions elicited by contemporary intermedial practices and ends with a brief consideration of Rancière’s account of the clash of heterogeneous elements in intermedial practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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