Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter considers connections between conceptual art, art history, and Indigeneity. Through analysis of art-historical work by Ian Burn and Lucy R. Lippard motivated by encounters with Indigenous art (Aboriginal Australian and Native American, respectively), it argues that the ways in which these two unconventional art historians received and responded to that art reflects their earlier participation in the conceptual art movement. It also takes into consideration how Indigenous artists such as Gerald Clarke (Cahuilla) address conceptuality as a concern in their work. Readings of Burn’s work (much of it collaborative with Ann Stephen) on Arrernte artist Albert Namatjira show how Burn moved past prevailing understanding of the artist’s watercolors as imitative of white art to identify a conceptually savvy practice staged effectively between cultures. Tracing the trajectory of Lippard’s work, especially after she relocated to Galisteo, New Mexico, and dialoged with Native American artists including Jaune Quick-to-See Smith (Salish-Kootenai, Métis-Cree, and Shoshone) and Ramona Sakiestewa (Hopi), shows how she reconceived her role as an art historian to focus on questions involving identity, locality, environment, and place. Overall, this chapter recognizes the complex and fraught space in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists and art historians shape the concept of art.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 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".