Nebularity: The Continuing Proliferation of the Abject in Contemporary Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates abject art why it has proliferated since gaining notoriety in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The exhibition, Nebularity, brings together non-traditional abject artworks in order to broaden develop abject theory for the 21st century. By employing Julia Kristeva’s theory on the abject in conjunction with Georges Bataille’s formlessness and Jean Paul Sartre’s interpretation of the hole, Nebularity argues that abject art remains current in contemporary practice because of ability to unsettle the self through the encroachment of the other. Three contemporary artists – Louis Fortier, Jesika Joy, and Kim Stanford – utilize multiple mediums to demonstrate how varied and abstract artworks can have the same type of perturbing and unsettling potential as traditionally defined abject art. By confusing boundaries, imposing intimacy, and deteriorating conventional forms, Nebularity asserts that the abject is not just another genre of art but a means to continually challenge structures of subjectivity and knowledge.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".