Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper critiques de Botton and Armstrong’s Art as Therapy project (2013-2015), a collaboration with art museums in Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia, in which labels in the gallery, as well a catalogue and website, explain how viewers might use works of art to serve therapeutic purposes in their lives. The paper argues that, instead of making art more accessible to those who, allegedly, do not find access to art on their own, the Art as Therapy project undermines the force and richness of art by first declaring it useless and inaccessible and then repurposing it as therapeutic life hack.KEYWORDS: Museum education; aesthetic experience; pedagogical intervention; interpretive freedom.Résumé: Cet article se veut une critique du projet Art as Therapy (2013-2015) de Botton et Armstrong, mené en collaboration avec des musées des beaux-arts canadiens, néerlandais et australiens, dans le cadre duquel les affichettes des musées, ainsi que catalogues et sites Web, expliquent aux visiteurs comment utiliser les œuvres d’art à des fins thérapeutiques dans leur quotidien. Dans cet article, je prétends que, plutôt que rendre l’art davantage accessible à ceux qui ne peuvent supposément y accéder de leur propre chef, le projet Art as Therapy sape la force et la richesse de l’art en le déclarant à prime abord inutile et inaccessible pour le transformer par la suite en « astuces de vie » thérapeutiquesMOTS CLES: Éducation muséale; d’expérience esthétique; intervention pédagogique; la liberté interprétative
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 | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.161 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".