MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401758347 · doi:10.32920/26809294

Jo Spence: Work | Politics | Survival

2024· preprint· en· W4401758347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charlene N. Heath

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsWork (physics)Political scienceSociologyThermodynamicsLawPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jo Spence’s work contributed to the multiple, yet marginalized voices using documentary photography as a critique of modernism in the context of socialist-feminism and the New Left in England in the 1970s. Spence and her primary collaborator, Terry Dennett, intentionally created and shaped their archive in London in the 1970s and 1980s as a resource for collaborative action—an ‘alternative institution’ that grew out of the 1960s and was characterized by political and ideological forms of opposition to dominant culture. While archives traditionally function as places where documents from the past go to be stored, preserved, and sometimes forgotten, they also legitimize dominant sets of values regarding what does, or does not, constitute the historical record. The central concerns of my dissertation ask how social discourses of the Art world, namely commercial galleries and institutional museum practices, have muted the radical impulse behind the photographic work of Spence, Dennett, and their collaborators. Additionally, it poses the question of whether formal archiving can preserve the anti-institutional motivation in Spence’s radical documentary photography, and if so, what strategies of engagement are necessary for doing so? Beyond mere preservation, my methods of archival approach demonstrate how archival work can be utilized to rearticulate the polemic in Spence’s work in repositories holding elements of her Memorial Archive. The discursive context and function behind maintaining a repository in Spence’s name was to preserve and provide access for future political work. Therefore, archiving its material must account for and decipher the polemic contours of the material and render it legible in the institutions holding the archive today. By examining two key projects as case studies as well as two elements of the largest repository of the Jo Spence Memorial Archive at The Image Centre at Toronto Metropolitan University, my dissertation considers not only photography’s place within the polemics of 1970s and ‘80s Britain, but also whether its impact endures. First, it accounts for what made Spence’s practice radical; that is, how she borrowed from the worker photography movement of the 1920s and ‘30s to situate her work between the realms of socialist-feminist activism and Art. Secondly, my dissertation underscores the critical importance of understanding that Spence was not a self-proclaimed ‘artist’ first; she was initially known as a professional studio photographer in the 1960s and early 1970s, then an activist, educator, writer, community organizer, and socialist-feminist in the 1970s and ‘80s. Only over the last two decades has she become widely known in the Art world, especially for her phototherapy work made in the 1980s—work made with numerous individuals who collaborated with her in various ways, circulating work that was made for multiple uses in various innovative formats. By extension, the third aspect of my dissertation addresses Spence’s work in its contemporary institutionalized contexts and highlights that once institutionalized, the tactile, hands-on use value of it is lost to the logic of museum protocol, institutional handling, and preservation practices. This aspect, therefore, mobilizes methods of archival engagement that function as a strategy to tip the scale that gives disproportionate weight to her work as newly discovered within categories of feminist Art and ‘postmodernism.’

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.028
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207