Bibliographic record
Abstract
If critics are to be believed, the use of video on the theatrical stage had become something of a fad by the early years of the new millennium. “Multimedia,” wrote Lyn Gardner in the Guardian, “is a word I've come to dread in the theatre. There was a period around five years ago when you could hardly step inside a theatre to see a new play without encountering a bank of video monitors.”1 Diedrich Diederichsen recounts the similarly exasperated tone of a Berlin critic, who wrote in December 2003 of her wish for the coming year that the Berlin Volksbühne might resist using video projections just once.2 Opera, meanwhile, has been no stranger to this fascination with video. Toronto critic Peter Goddard recently wrote of “opera's video projection fetish,” quoting director Astrid Janson on the “fashionable” use of “large projections, particularly in Wagner.”3 Arguably, the ultimate product of this “fetish” has been The Tristan Project, a production of Wagner's three-act Handlung directed by Peter Sellars with a commissioned full-length video by Bill Viola. Initially presented in semistaged form (one act per evening) at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles, in December 2004 and fully staged at Paris's Opéra Bastille in April 2005, The Tristan Project attracted extraordinary media interest: interviews and preview articles flooded the press before the performances, while the review coverage was as widespread as it gets for opera. The source of the fascination? Undoubtedly, it had much to do with the contested reputations of the collaborators. If Sellars has surely outgrown his reputation as opera's bad boy, he remains a provocative figure, still capable of dividing opinion.4 Viola, meanwhile, is surely the most discussed figure in video art today: his installations have generated both critical and public interest worldwide, while the body of scholarly literature on his work has grown substantially. Yet admiration of Viola's technical skill and the sheer beauty of his work tends to be met with concerns about a superficiality and the perceived absence of the qualities—cultural critique, skepticism about art and the aesthetic—that have characterized much video art since its emergence in the late sixties and seventies (an emergence to which Viola's early work contributed).5 Here was Viola's stock-in-trade imagery: bodies floating in water and enveloped by fire, split-framed character studies summoning the allegorical resonance of Renaissance portraiture, meditative shots of natural environments—such as the desert—that are the haunts of seers and prophets. All this was true to form and likely to confirm the views both of his admirers and his detractors. Critics of The Tristan Project summoned superlatives both positive and negative, characterizing Viola's video as everything from a revelatory experience to an extended Calvin Klein advertisement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.760 | 0.675 |
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".