Visual ethnographies of displacement and violence: land(e)scapes in artists’ works at Thupelo Artists’ Workshop, Wellington, South Africa, 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws together processes of art-making and academic ethnographic writing. It does this by including artists’ written comments on the personal and self-reflexive processes of artwork construction, as well as images of artworks, within academic discussion, in relation to emphasising the ‘turn’ within ethnography towards a more sensory, creative, emotive, embodied, interactive and performative approach. Consequently, the article functions as an exploration and illustration of what might constitute ‘ethnography’ in contemporary art, and art in ethnography, considering claims to similarity between the two. The focus of this multilayered article is on depictions of cultural, historical and corporeal violence in relation to land(e)scapes and self/culture/place and displacement, through the contributions of five artists who took part in a Thupelo International Artists’ workshop (emphasising the exchange of ideas, techniques and collaboration). Nineteen artists congregated in an isolated forest area in Wellington, South Africa, including the author in her capacity as both anthropologist and artist. Despite their different backgrounds, the artists drew on similar modes of working within visual ‘auto-ethnographies’ of socio-cultural displacement, in relation to collective violence, histories and conflict, operating as both ethnographers and archivists. Ultimately, through a consideration of overlaps between art and ethnography in relation to the works and auto-ethnographies depicted, it is suggested that this article, in occupying the ‘space between’ the disciplines, may also operate as an 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".