Sharing Interiority:Notes on Tino Sehgal’s Guggenheim Solo Show
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experiment in creative critical writing by focusing on my engagement-over the span of an entire day-with the two works presented in Tino Sehgal"s solo show at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum from January 29 through March 10, 2010.While Kiss (2004) is a sculpture-inmotion, performed by a couple of professional dancers, This Progress (2007) is a relational installation which takes visitors through a series of conversations with "interpreters" (non-professional, paid actors), hired for this purpose.Structured around subjective retellings of my successive encounters withSehgal"s two pieces, which situate themselves at the intersection between performance and the visual arts, the paper draws on a range of contemporary writings in art and theatre/performance studies in order to highlight both the indebtedness of Sehgal"s work to theatrical conventions and its simultaneous departure from, and continuation of, some of the principal tropes of relational aesthetics.Ultimately, these observations give rise to a reflection on the place of the face-to-face encounter within today"s generalized drive toward ethically oriented community-formation in the growingly interconnected realms of contemporary art and performance.Cet article prend la forme d"une tentative d"écriture créative qui a pour objet la visite approfondie (d"une journée complète) que j"ai faite au Musée Solomon R.Guggenheim où Tino Sehgal présentait deux œuvres du 29 janvier au 10 mars 2010.Kiss (2004) est une sculpture animée, performée par un couple de
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".