Appropriation Method in Visual Art Teacher Education Painting Art Studio Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is a case study aiming to reveal the experiences of art students towards the activity of “reproduction through appropriation”. During the activity process, students were firstly informed about appropriation and the art of appropriation, especially the works in which two works of art were appropriated by integrating them, and each student was asked to identify two works of art to be appropriated. Students made sketches by establishing relational links between the two works they chose. In the last stage, students were expected to make a new artistic production. In this research, which was conducted with the participation of 8 students attending the art studio course, the experiences of the students regarding the process formed the unit of analysis. Worksheets, process evaluation form and artworks were used as data sources. As a result of the research, it was identified that the students were able to produce thoughts about the concepts emerging with appropriation and appropriation art and question this art practice. The students made an effort to integrate the artistic elements in the two works they used for appropriation in an appropriate way and to create the best visual fiction, and they were able to bring a new interpretation by making use of the artists’ application of the paint technique and their understanding of colour in the appropriated works. They also realised that the artwork they produced was only a tool to force themselves into the artistic creation process and to gain artistic knowledge and skills. In other words, they developed an awareness of the limits of utilising the works in the history of art to ensure originality in their future arworks. It is possible to say that making use of the appropriation method in art studio courses will contribute to the artistic development of students.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".