Warhol Goes Social: creativity in the tech age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitch Goodwin was invited to speak on the panel session, Warhol Goes Social at the SXSW Interactive conference component of the 2013 SXSW Festival in Austin Texas. The panel was composed of Goodwin, artist Laurie Fricke, Associate Creative Director at Critical Mass Christiaan Welzel and the panel was moderated by David Jones, VP of Social Media at Critical Mass (Canada). Today, everyone is a "Creative." With the boom of visually-based social platforms like Instagram and Pinterest, technology has leveled the playing field. Does this really change how we define art and creativity? Artistic purists believe these tools cheapen the creative output with seventeen standard filters available to every untrained eye. But in true entrepreneurial spirit, those apps encourage a more democrative view of creativity, allowing user to share their inspiration with their friends and create beauty where it previously would have been impossible. Is there a difference between high-brow and low-brow art in relation to what social media enables everyone to create?
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.009 |
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".