Tacit Knowledge in Painting: From Studio to Classroom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article discusses research that employed practice‐led and action research methods to study the tacit knowledge of painting practice and its application to teaching. Polanyi’s theory of tacit knowledge is used to analyse the non‐verbal, experience‐based knowledge of painting to construct a discursive relationship between the dual practices of painting and teaching. The research was undertaken in the context of a twelve‐week class in landscape painting for adults in a non‐profit art school. Within the context of the class, a series of paintings was created and documented. By analysing the focal and subsidiary knowledge of the painting processes, several distinct patterns of action and thinking emerged. These patterns were synthesised into three modes of thinking that integrate the mind, body and materials. The outcome of the study is a preliminary model that describes painting as a dynamic multi‐modal thinking process, integrating visual perception, material actions and expressive ways of thinking. The discussion includes a detailed description of the research methods, the data analysis, the application in teaching, and the embodied nature of cognition in the painting process.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it