A countercultural movement: examining Carlee Scheemann's kinetic theatre between 1963 and 1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines Carolee Schneemann's kinetic theatre performances (1963-1970) within the specific context of the art of the 1960s and the counterculture. In 1962, Schneemann coined the term “kinetic theatre” to describe her particular form of happenings and performance art. Although this definition was recognized in the initial art criticism of the 1960s, this is a genre of art that has been lost within current forms of feminist art history, performance studies and postwar art. Indeed, there has been no critical study of kinetic theatre within art history. My research examines the emergence of Schneemann's kinetic theatre, establishes its relationship to the counterculture and provides an explanation for its disappearance in 1970. Feminist art historians and critics have almost exclusively focused on the agency and the role of Schneemann's body within her performances. However, these interpretations have failed to address the political and aesthetic use of her group choreography within her kinetic theatre. This research charts a new direction of scholarship on Schneemann and more broadly it addresses the discourse on mid-twentieth performance art and feminist art history. I demonstrate that Schneemann was working in collaboration with male artists such as Stan Brakhage and that her kinetic theatre was politically situated within the antiwar movement, the politics of antipsychiatry and the New Left. By examining Schneemann's intricate network and collaborative associations in the 1960s this research provides a more expansive and less mythic understanding of the counterculture and the particular kinds of feminist and artistic interventions that she made within the antiwar movement.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".