Crossing the Wire: Western Contemporary War Art in the Interbellum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article for the popular print and online arts magazine, Di'Van reflects on the current state of Western contemporary war art, nearing the conclusion of the Art in Conflict ARC Linkage led by the author, Kit Messham-Muir. It particularly reflects upon two decades of western war art surrounding the conflicts in the American-led 'War on Terror', which effectively came to its conclusion with America's abandonment of Afghanistan on 30 August 2021. Western contemporary war art has a long tradition of making creative works that comment on conflicts, largely conveying the perspectives of the western troops. Indeed, this is the primary remit of most official war artist schemes in nations such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. This article considers the conspicuous absence of local voices, from within those war zones, in the sub-genre of contemporary war art. This article responds to criticisms by Muhub Esmat in an earlier issue of Di'Van, that western war art aims to only evoke a “facile compassion”. It takes up Esmat's analysis of the Afghan artist Aziz Hazara, who works between Kabul and Ghent, particularly discussing his five-channel video installation Bow Echo (2019), which was shown at John Curtin Gallery, Perth, shortly following the publication of this article. This article argues that sometimes western war artists do succeeding in 'crossing the wire' of the protected western bubble of military, which tends to skew our perspectives of how we view and understand the conflicts our troops engage in. It ends with a consideration of the fresh and raw war art currently coming out of the war in Ukraine, in works such as those by the Ukrainian artist who goes by the pseudonym 'Ave'.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".