Preservation Of A Time-Based Media Installation : A Case Study of George Eastman House 1968 and 2008 Exhibitions, Conscience The Ultimate Weapon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July of 1968, George Eastman House opened Conscience the Ultimate Weapon (Conscience), an innovative audio-visual installation consisting of projected images dissolving from one to the next, accompanied by a synchronized soundtrack. Under the direction of Nathan Lyons, curator at George Eastman House from 1959 to 1969, the exhibition projected 780 photojournalistic images by Benedict J. Fernandez III, depicting protests and public demonstrations that affirmed political dissent throughout the United States during the 1960s. This provocative, political, and ultimately controversial exhibition was firmly grounded in the conflicts of the time. Further, it challenged the exhibition standards of an institution that was known primarily for the promotion of the photograph as fine art and the celebration of the photographic print. In 2008, George Eastman House created an interpretation of this historically important exhibition using modern technology within a contemporary social and political context. Through a case study comparing the 1968 George Eastman House exhibition, Conscience, with the 2008 interpretation of Conscience, this paper will provide an analysis of the preservation issues surrounding these time-based media installations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".