Art Conservation and its Curriculum as Relational Mystery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art conservation practices tend to adhere to Eurocentric reductionism and rationalism that have dominated Western sciences and education, negating subjectivity and experience as knowledge sources. Aoki called for mysterious and generative middles between planned and live(d) curriculum to be indwelled through meditation, expanding curriculum to include individual lifeworlds and relations. This study mobilizes Foucauldian death meditation to destabilize and further expand curriculum by indwelling on death in life from the mysterious middles between human art conservators and more-than-human art objects. Bringing together neo-materialist and Indigenous perspectives, we reconfigure current limits of art conservation to consider agency, intra-action and permeability of human and non-human lifedeath. In the care of artwork by conceptual artists Komar and Melamid—intentionally created to disintegrate—meditations of attending and mourning reach toward more response-able forms of art conservation practice and curriculum. We propose an art conservation curriculum of relational mystery using death meditation entangled with conundrums of art mourning to deepen students’ enchantment with unfathomable aspects of lifedeath, thereby invigorating teaching and conserving with mystery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".