Spiritual Arts and Education of “Less is More”: Japanese Perspectives, Western Possibilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arts education, with its curriculum based on mainstream aesthetics, lays out the course of learning as centered on a series of art works.This series progresses from the elementary to the advanced, from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the abstract.The language of arts education centers around universal aspects of art that transcend hereand-now propositions.One pedagogical and epistemological assumption behind this type of approach is "the more the better," an idea that makes educators unconsciously seek, for example, more advanced techniques, more universal concepts, more comprehensive repertoire, more abstract knowledge, and more creative products.London (1989) points out that art is typically perceived as refined manifestations of beauty, creativity, and originality.Three notions that hinder our attempts of engaging with life through art are that art is purely about beauty, that technique and a dexterous eye are necessary to be artists, and that there are certain canons of good art forms.Obsessed by these notions, we are "cut off from the authentic source of art, that is, firsthand conversation between the self and the world" (London, 2003, p. 76).Similarly, Palmer (1994) argues that mainstream aesthetic theories in music education have promoted, though perhaps not intentionally, an unbalanced inclination toward teaching "about" music and teaching something "cognitive and abstract" in music classrooms (p.43).This line
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".