Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American artist Spencer Tunick is internationally known for organizing and photographing massive nude gatherings in public spaces, including parks, streets, and squares. His work has generated great controversies regarding the juxtaposition of public space, nudity, and art. Tunick refers to these events as “temporary site-specific installations” (Rosenfeld, 1999). When Tunick started his artistic project in 1992, the installations were performed quickly to avoid confrontations with authority, and involved either individuals or small groups. Since 2001, however, several museums and art institutions around the world, including the Musée d’Art Contemporain de Montréal and the Baltic Center for Contemporary Art in Newcastle, have commissioned Tunick’s installations. Most of these installations have taken place either inside the museum’s facilities or in front of their façades. These have engaged thousands of nude volunteers, who refer to their experience of modeling as nude bodies in public space as, “meaningful, remarkable, memorable, transformative” (Young, 2005, p. 4). The use of Spencer Tunick’s collective nude installations has transformed the museum space. Considering the public’s profound experience in participating in Tunick’s work, several examples will examine how these transformations mostly occur in the intangible realm of the nude participant’s memory of a cathartic experience within the museum space. These examples will also investigate possible transformations initiated by the museum space in Tunick’s artistic production. The memory of the fleeting construction is also material-ized in the final art object: the photograph, which stands as the installation’s official document. Finally, the study analyses how the museum has become the institutional space where the experience provided by Spencer Tunick’s controversial work is legally authorized, in a symbiotic relationship between the artist and the museum.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".