Voicing Culture: Training Korean Actors' Voices through the Namdaemun Market Projects
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
Over the past ten years, scholars and voice practitioners have debated issues surrounding the training of the actor's voice and addressed the actor's culture during that training. This article asks, What cultural assumptions are embedded within mainstream voice approaches and how are these transmitted within classrooms that are becoming increasingly multicultural/multilinguistic? How might re-contextualizing western voice praxis in a Korean acting conservatoire reframe issues emerging from recent debates, and offer different ways of thinking, talking, and embodying a culture–voice relationship in the training of actors' voices? This article critically examines the ways in which the actor's voice, and by extension the training of that voice, inform the material conditions for the production of meaning in contemporary devised performance and suggests one practical way voice trainers can create a praxis that places voice and culture at the centre of the training and theatre-making process. Using the author's voice classes at the Korean National University of Arts (KNUA) in Seoul, Korea, as case studies, this article investigates issues through a practice-as-research methodological approach within a series of performance projects called the Namdaemun Market Projects.
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 | 0.001 | 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