Receiving the Classics: The Curation of Ink Painting Animation in the Early People’s Republic of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a discussion of curation as a state method for the selection of animated films. Four ink painting animations produced at the historically important Shanghai Animation Film Studio (SAFS) are discussed, Ink Painting Animation Films ( Shuimo donghuapian 水墨动画片, 1960), Little Swallow ( Xiaoyanzi /小燕子, 1960), Where Is Mama? ( Xiao kedou zhao mama /小蝌蚪找妈妈, 1960), and The Oxherd’s Flute ( Mudi /牧笛, 1963). The early 1950s and 60s were a key period for cultural reform in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), notably in the Fine Arts and Film. Ink painting animation was at once an identifiable Chinese form, an historically significant form for the newly emergent PRC nation, and a controversial form in a field that was quickly shifting to socialist realism. This article attempts to tease out the way ink painting animation films were curated by state and citizen players at the time to represent a true national painting/guohua/ 国画/ form that represented Chinese culture. For commentators, and perhaps for the animators themselves, ink painting animation represented the ultimate sinification of Western film technology and cel animation technique. Three ink painting animations were completed by 1960. However, by 1963, the fourth ink painting animation would be banned, and the animators suffered political criticism. By reading this last early ink painting animation within the context of its production, possible meanings point to a deliberate attempt on the part of the animators to suggest a critique of top-down cultural production. To this day, SAFS productions have been curated around a small number of works. This article asks: Are there more classics?
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".