Artists, art historians, and the value of contemporary Inuit art (Nunavut)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economics are a defining feature of contemporary Inuit art. Nonetheless, financial considerations receive little, if any, serious attention by art historians who study the artform. On whose terms have the value and meaning of contemporary Inuit art taken shape? This thesis explores the tension between how Inuit artists define themselves as artists and their work as art, and how contemporary Inuit art and its makers are represented in the South. The purpose of this study is not only to determine how the concept of art in the North differs from that in the South, but to identify the actual process by which contemporary Inuit art 'moves' from one context to the other, gaining and losing meaning along the way. This process, although not entirely mediated by southern agents, reproduces existing power relations that obscure the actual social---and cultural---conditions of production in favour of Western notions of creativity and innovation. By juxtaposing the perspectives of prominent Cape Dorset artists with a critical examination of the treatment of contemporary Inuit art at the National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, this thesis demonstrates how the artistic and cultural values of Inuit are eclipsed by Western art philosophies and museological practices in the southern art field.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".