Postmodern theory's retreat amidst postmodern art's return: neglect of IP law as a possible cause of postmodernism's "death"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the centrality of appropriation to postmodernist aesthetics, despite the embroilment of postmodernist artists in copyright actions, and despite the steady toughening of intellectual property (IP) law during the postmodern period, the majority of postmodern theory has largely neglected IP and copyright. The few critical considerations of IP in recent, "postmortem"-style retrospectives on the rise and fall of postmodern theory invite elaboration, in order to show postmodern theory’s continuing relevance and capacity for interpreting contemporary culture. A theory of the postmodern reoriented to IP law as a globalized regulatory infrastructure of contemporary cultural production, distribution, and consumption seems a useful analytic tool for interpreting both the DIY culture of everyday digital life and the more professional work of recent and current artists and intellectuals. \n \nMLA citation: \nMcCutcheon, Mark A. “Postmodern theory's retreat amidst postmodern art's return: neglect of IP law as a possible cause of postmodernism's ‘death’.” Research Symposium, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Athabasca U, 23 Sept. 2015.
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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".