Between life and the underground : a study of photography found in Rolling Stone magazine from 1967 to 1972
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to consider what the photography used within Rolling Stone magazine contributes to the history of photojournalism, Between Life and the Underground analyzes the aesthetic of the photography and conceptual layouts produced within the magazine. This study looks specifically at the period of 1967 to 1972, a time when mainstream publications like Life magazine ceased production and when over 500 underground publications were piloted. A comparative analysis of the design, economics, and production of both Rolling Stone and the underground publication the Berkeley Barb traces the influence that the underground had on the aesthetic of Rolling Stone’s photography and layout. The role that cover photography played in perpetuating the identity that Rolling Stone wanted to embody is also investigated. The influence that New Journalism had on the production of photojournalism at Life and Rolling Stone is also considered—framed around a comparison of the photographic coverage of the Woodstock Festival of 1969 and the police riots at the Democratic National Convention of 1968. This study concludes that the underground press cultivated a new photographic aesthetic and conceptual technique for laying out photographs which adhered to the ideals of the 1960s—namely informality, which Rolling Stone then adapted to create a profitable magazine.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".