Art For? Framing the Conversation on Art and Social Change with Steven Hill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In my role as a researcher with Simon Fraser’s University’s Art for Social Change Research Project I was charged with the task of historicalizing the work of artists who have been recognized for their contribution to the field of socially engaged art. With video artist Flick Harrison we set out and conducted a series of intimate and personal conversations with artists, many of whom I shared a history of practice. Defining the practice as meaning to take the experience one has gained, experience from the doing of it, in order to actualize a condition or event that did not exist before. The research outcome represented in this digital video piece is based on a recorded interview with director, actor, and creator Steven Hill. By disrupting the interview through visual inserts and pithy philosophical responses into the visual frame we are seeking to unpack the conventional research interview. This process in and of itself becomes an action site of research. This piece not only playfully unpacks the objectivity of the researcher but also offers a field of visual play that formally furthers Steven Hill’s theorizing on the idea of frames and what predetermines the frames we bring to the project of art ‘for’ social change. The underlying question that forms the spine of interview is based on Hannah Arendt’s (1954) theory of past and future as it relates to the education of the young. What needs to be preserved in your practice or held a responsibility as it is re-imagined in the future?
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".