Holography—A Critical Debate within Contemporary Visual Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artists have been exploring the spatial, conceptual and three-dimensional qualities of holography for over fifty years. Why, then, is there so little sustained critical pressure placed on this process, methodology and mode of visualisation which underpins the developing practice?In 1994, pioneering British artist Margaret Benyon, in her doctoral thesis, posed the question “How is Holography Art”, and offered a range of answers, by applying critical pressure to her considerable work in the field. Over 25 years later, we have used Benyon’s investigation as an invitation to ask more questions. This Special Issue in Arts brings together artists working with holography, as well as curators and long-term expert observers with an interest in the medium, to open up a more comprehensive discussion. They have reflected on the development of their work and its place within a cultural and critical framework. The curators and observers have employed a wider lens from their standpoints outside the field, but this is located firmly within current cultural discussions.There are more questions and certainly a need to increase the critical pressure around why holography could be one of the most significant ways of seeing and representing worlds and ideas today. We are surrounded by terrible art (painting, sculpture, print, photography, performance, digital, moving image), and holography has undoubtedly contributed to the visual flotsam clogging our vision. This publication aims to identify the importance of critical conversation, and the place holography holds within our current and complex media landscape.
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 | 0.036 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.194 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".