MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242680076 · doi:10.1002/9781118978061.ead065

Desiring Lines: The Pedagogical Responsibility of Art & Design at the End of the World

2019· other· en· W4242680076 on OpenAlexaff
jan jagodzinski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Encyclopedia of Art and Design Education · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapitalismHumanismAnthropoceneAestheticsAbsurdityAnthropocentrismSociologyFraming (construction)The ImaginaryReflexivityArt designArgument (complex analysis)ArtEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyHistoryLawVisual artsSocial sciencePsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter attempts to juxtapose desire as lack, which pervades designer capitalism, against more affirmative notions of desire as developed by Deleuze and Guattari. The framing of this tension is placed against the separate spheres of art & design, which historically have been at odds. Given the urgency of the global ecological crisis surrounding the Anthropocene, the argument is presented that pedagogical responsibility rests on decentering our humanist anthropocentric orientation, especially the way aesthetics has traditionally been taken up by art & design education. The suggestion is made that speculative design and postconceptual developments in art provide a line of flight away from designer capitalism that remains unsustainable. Both speculative design and postconceptual art position the spectator/participant/consumer in the interstice of what is here called “self‐refleXivity,” which opens up future worlds for the transvaluation of the current art & designer imaginary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0200.012
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Encyclopedia of Art and Design EducationSame topicInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine SystemsFrench-language works237,207