Bibliographic record
Abstract
The creation of visual art has often been considered to be the privilege of the artist, where art is confined to the purpose and intention of its creation, and the assessment of art becomes a series of explanations that restrain the meaning of an artistic expression. From the perspective of Deleuze-Guattari, art is a monument of sensation that transcends the boundaries of subject and object, and it stands as a statement about itself. The relationship between the artist-subject and material-object used in the process of creating visual art is therefore in the domain of visual practice as a kind of thinking and acting strategy. Joko Avianto’s three-dimensional works exhibited in Frankfurt, Germany, and Yokohama, Japan, are examples of Deleuze-Guattari’s explanation of monuments of sensations in their embodiment. Joko Avianto creates a distinctive and subjective method of artistic action in his creative process, transforming perception into percept and affection into affect, and affirming the state of becoming. Art, visual art, and art practice are mechanisms that allow them to express an ethico-aesthetic paradigm. This paradigm reconnects each existence and becoming of the subject, through aesthetic experience, to the re-emerging new world. Thus, what makes art special is its capability to both transcend and surpass the limits to rediscover or restore the boundless.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".