Construing the Postapocalypse in Two Different Spaces and Artistic Languages: Margaret Atwood and Adrián Villar Rojas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a thematic approach to literature and the arts, the article aims at exploring and comparing how the Postapocalypse is constructed in the trilogy MaddAddam by Canadian writer Margaret Atwood (n. 1939) and the recent works of the young Argentinean sculptor Adrián Villar Rojas (n. 1980). The production of both artists is approached as belonging to a dystopian tradition, defined mainly from Frederic Jameson’s point of view. The main interest of Atwood’s trilogy is centered on the conditions of survivalof the human species on the planet after the “waterless flood”, a pandemic produced in a laboratory of bioengineering. Atwood believes in the possibility of survival, in a new beginning of culture on the planet on the basis of an unprecedented hybrid life born out of the mixing of human beings and beings born in laboratories, and a new approach to animal and natural life. As to Villar Rojas, though his first site-specifics are quite pessimistic as to the fate of the planet, in the title of one of his XXIst Century exhibitions -Today We Reboot the Planet, in the Serpentine Sackler Gallery, London (2013)- the faith in a Postapocalypse begins to emerge. The analysis will precisely focus on the techniques he uses in his celebrated site-specific art to attain this aim.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".