Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that the making of art through the medium of light (Light Art – both artificial and solar), will continue to elevate human existence so long as its makers remain committed to illusion as opposed to the banality of the real. When an art form becomes obsessed with the real it loses sight of the central power of art – the power of making illusion. Light Art thrives in a multidisciplinary world of knowledge where artists understand that the “real” hides behind appearances. Under such a view we may combat singular interpretations in favor of multiple meanings. When we sacrifice a focus on illusion (so essential to art making) for the banality of the “real” world we venture into a kind of anti-art which I term “art-lite” – one of the many manifestations of weak art which proliferates in the art world today. On the side of Light Art as an art of illusion stand many important areas of study today. In this paper I point to several of these (physics, optical science, history, art history, poetics, computer science, mathematics, sociology and social criticism, digital studies, photography, skiagraphy, and aesthetics). This paper argues that Light Art can continue to play an elevating role in our lives due to the very nature of the multidisciplinary perspectives we deploy to challenge, understand, and complete it. The presence of these multiple and intersecting areas of analysis will continue to serve Light Art and place high demands on its makers – including the most important demand that Light Art, like all true art, be concerned with illusion ever avoiding the banalities of the real.
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 | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".