MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

European Tapestries

2021· reference-entry· en· W4251383810 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2021
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionBaroqueArtHistory of artScholarshipMainstreamPaintingVisual artsArt historyThe artsFine artDecorative artsItalian RenaissanceThe RenaissanceVisual arts educationArchitecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tapestry, the most costly and coveted art form in Renaissance and Baroque Europe, has long fascinated scholars. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, researchers delved into archival sources and studied extant tapestries to produce sweeping introductions to the medium. The study of tapestry, however, fell outside mainstream art history, with tapestry too often seen as a less important “decorative art” rather than a “fine art.” , Also, tapestry did not fit easily into an art history that prioritized one master, as the making of a set of large-scale tapestries required a team of collaborators, including the designer, cartoon painters, and weavers, as well as a producer/entrepreneur and, often, a patron. Scholarship on European tapestries in the Early Modern period, nevertheless, flourished. By the late 20th century art historians turned attention to the “decorative arts” and tapestry specialists produced exciting new research illuminating aspects of design, production, and patronage, as well as tapestry’s crucial role in the larger narrative of art and cultural history. In 2002, the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s landmark exhibition and catalogue, Tapestry in the Renaissance: Art and Magnificence, spotlighted the art form, introduced it to a broad audience, and brought new understanding of tapestry as art. A sequel, the Met’s 2007 exhibition and catalogue, Tapestry in the Baroque: Threads of Splendor, followed. Other major museums presented ambitious exhibitions, accompanied by catalogues with substantial new research. In addition, from the late 20th century, institutions have produced complete catalogues of their extraordinary European tapestry holdings, among them: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York; the Patrimonio Nacional in Spain; the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam; the Art Institute of Chicago; and the Burrell Collection in Glasgow. At the same time, articles and books exploring specific designs, designers, producers, and patrons appeared, with some monographs published in the dedicated series, Studies in Western Tapestry, edited by leading scholars Guy Delmarcel and Koenraad Brosens, and produced by Brepols. Tapestry research has often focused on the works of well-known designers and their exceptionally innovative work, such as the artists Raphael (b. 1483–d. 1520) or Peter Paul Rubens (b. 1577–d. 1640). High-quality production at major centers, including Brussels or at the Gobelins Manufactory in France, has also captured scholars’ attention, as have important patrons, among them Henry VIII of England (b. 1491–d. 1547) or Louis XIV of France (b. 1638–d. 1715). Newer directions for research include the contributions of women as weavers and entrepreneurs, the practice of reweaving designs, and the international reach and appeal of Renaissance and Baroque tapestry beyond Europe.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207