Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract TO UNDERSTAND THE INTRICATE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN POLITICS AND AFFECTS, I EXAMINE A PERFORMANCE OF THE BERLIN-BASED ARTIST COLLECTIVE ZENTRUM FÜR POLITISCHE SCHÖNHEIT (CENTER FOR POLITICAL BEAUTY, ZPS), IN WHICH ARTIST ACTIVISTS STAGED A HORSEBACK RIDE TO FASTEN A MANIFESTO OF TEN THESES OF POLITICAL BEAUTY ON THE FAÇADE OF THE GERMAN BUNDESTAG. INTERCONNECTING THEORIES OF POLITICAL DIFFERENCE (MARCHART 2010), WHICH DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE ONTOLOGICAL REALM OF ‘THE POLITICAL’ AND ONTIC REALIZATIONS OF ‘POLITICS’, AND POLITICAL THEORIES OF AFFECT, I APPROACH THE AFFECTIVE DIMENSIONS OF POLITICAL DIFFERENCE AS AFFECTIVE POLITICS. BUILDING ON BARGETZ’S (2014) “POLITICAL GRAMMAR OF FEELINGS”, I SITUATE THE PERFORMANCE’S TEMPORARY INSTITUTIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS OF ‘POLITICS’ AND ‘THE POLITICAL’, AS WELL AS ‘FEELING POLITICS’ AND ‘POLITICS OF FEELING’ RESPECTIVELY, AS AFFECTIVE ENCOUNTERS TO EXPERIENCE OR ENACT POLITICAL BEAUTY. POLITICAL BEAUTY, IN AN ANTAGONISTIC FRAMEWORK THAT FOREGROUNDS CONTINGENCY, CONFLICT AND ABSENCE, MOBILIZES AFFECTS AS INHERENTLY AMBIVALENT AND CONTENTIOUS. AS A CHALLENGE TO THE DIAGNOSIS OF AN INEVITABLE POST-POLITICAL CONDITION, I DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL OF POLITICAL BEAUTY AS AFFECTIVE POLITICS TO POTENTIALLY RE-POLITICIZE POLITICS. BORROWING FROM DERRIDA (1994), I CONDUCT A SPECTRAL READING OF ZPS’ TEN THESES AND CARVE OUT THREE ANALYTICAL VIGNETTES – BEAUTY, VITALITY AND LONGING – TO CONCEPTUALIZE POLITICAL BEAUTY AS OSCILLATING BETWEEN THE DESIRE AND HOPE FOR POLITICAL CHANGE, WHICH CAN NEVER BE FULLY SATISFIED, AND A DISMISSAL OF (POLITICAL) UGLINESS AND DEATH. IN THE END, POLITICAL BEAUTY ESCAPES A DEFINITION BECAUSE IT IS, AFTER ALL, NOTHING BUT AN IMPOSSIBLE PROJECT FOR POLITICS AND AFFECTS OF AN UNKNOWN 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".