Academic Philistinism? The Challenges of Contemporary Artistic Research Inside Academia. Semi-structured Interviews with Visual Art Students in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research are twofold, firstly, to analyse how departments of art and art practitioners are integrated within academia, and to scrutinise this coexistence, by focusing on emerging issues due to the nature of Art as “specific knowledge” thus, an assessment of its eventual mismatch within the generic framework of a traditional academic context. Consequently, this article exposes both frictions and dilemmas witnessed, as well as elaborates on the specificities of the Art knowledge and associated visual creativity and thinking. The study used qualitative analysis to explore the topic of the integration of art departments within academic settings. In this article, ten Visual Art students from three Brazilian universities are interviewed between May and August of 2022 about their perspectives on their studies and whether they advocate artistic research. The results shed light on how artistic practice is viewed as research and demonstrate how the traditional research outcome affects art students in their art production, academic and artistic identities, and perceptions and expectations.
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 | 0.035 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".