Bibliographic record
Abstract
<i>“The function of the motion-picture screen is to display a world of fantasy and entertainment without the screen being obvious.”</i> On “Screen Masking, Surrounds, and Screen Draperies” in Don v. Kloepfel, Motion-Picture Projection and Theatre Presentation Manual, 1969.<i></i> The point of departure for this premiere performance was the obliteration, literally the blotting-out, of the cinematic object of projection. Projection performance as the art par excellence of obstructing, concealing, and masking absolutely nothing but itself. Obliteration: in which the spectacle of the apparatus is to be screened, or better screened-out, in the negative relief of a self-cancellation vis-à-vis nothing but the disciplinary application of a cinematic standard.Sandra Gibson and Luis Recoder stage the scene of film as orphaned object through the temporal labor of moving image installation. Collaborators since 2000, Gibson and Recoder unite the rich traditions of the experimental film, particularly its structuralist and materialist strands, and the multi-modal sensibility of expanded cinema that emerged in the 1960s, in which the moving image was woven into the labile space of performance, sound and audience interaction. Based in New York, Gibson and Recoder have exhibited and performed internationally at the Whitney Museum of American Art, MoMA PS1, The Kitchen, Sundance Film Festival, CATE, Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis, Sagamore, Toronto International Film Festival, Tate Modern, Viennale, Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt, Reina Sofia, Nam June Paik Art Center, Yokohama Museum of Art, and the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art. Gibson + Recoder are represented by Robischon Gallery, for more information please see www.gibsonrecoder.com
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".