From Forms to Form: Contemporary Art and the Practice of Bureaucratic Everyday Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet essai propose une nouvelle manière de considérer la bureaucratie néolibérale au sein du champ de l’art contemporain en mettant l’accent sur la manière avec laquelle les abstractions administratives sont vécues concrètement. La bureaucratie se définit comme un processus d’abstraction de la réalité en des normes, des processus et des catégories qui, à l’ère néolibérale, proviennent essentiellement de l’entreprise privée. Puisque ces abstractions deviennent souvent plus importantes que les réalités qu’elles décrivent, je propose une analyse d’oeuvres contemporaines qui explorent la réalité du travail d’artiste sous la bureaucratie néolibérale et la violence symbolique que cette dernière engendre. Par le biais d’une lecture de Popularity (2012) de Joshua Schwebel, de The Gathering (2020) par John Boyle-Singfield et de l’installation Le Ministère (2022) par le collectif CODE BLANC, il s’agit de mettre en lumière l’infrastrucutre administrative de l’art contemporain, afin de questionner ses fondements idéologiques et de rendre ses conséquences visibles.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.129 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".