Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary artist Kehinde Wiley depicts the dramatic friction between urban, black American culture in contrast to luxurious, baroque backdrops; making a bold commentary on art historical injustices. Why does this combination strike us as so surprising? Wiley’s paintings explicitly stress an “alternate reality,” one in which black presence is not eclipsed. Too often racialized persons and their respective cultures have been painted out or misconstrued in the canon of art history. The majority of Wiley’s subjects are racialized men positioned in traditional art historical poses. These canonical references highlight a clash between not only old and new, but between the tradition of white privilege and the disadvantage experienced by racialized individuals. In his colossal paintings, Wiley quotes celebrated artists such as Titian, Ingres, van Dyck and Gericault; thus highlighting a past not realized. In art historical convention, racialized subjects have typically been either ignored, hypersexualized, demonized or exoticized. Such conventional discrimination is confronted in Wiley’s impactful paintings. But do these paintings only encourage viewers to look up the canonical works Wiley references, thus solidifying the art historical tradition of white privilege and the “othering” of racialized persons? Do they simply highlight the “impersonation,” and thus the impossibility, of black men in positions of power? Ultimately, this problematization is unfounded. Wiley utilizes art historical quotations and aesthetic discordance in order to illuminate a past in need of correction as well as a higher degree of consciousness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".