With a view to a later date, or never : Em Hedditch, Lili Huston-Herterich, Jean-Paul Kelly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bricolage has its origins in anthropology, with the bricoleur identified as someone who develops a practice via process, understanding their environs by using what is at hand. In an art historical context, bricolage has no single strategy, methodology, or trajectory. This exhibition identifies contemporary practices by Em Hedditch (1972, UK), Lili Huston-Herterich (1988, US), and Jean-Paul Kelly (1977, Canada).The power of their projects rests not in the provenance of a unified medium or a single gesture. Instead, it is found in the accumulation of time and the potential for a practice imbricated with everyday life—situating the historical and social context of the bricoleur in relation to the viewer at the moment of encounter. For Hedditch, this includes making manifest via photos and found objects the demarcation of property boundaries that we both access and enforce each day. In close proximity to her home in Rotterdam, Huston-Herterich has sourced fibres from the detritus of the textile industry as the foundation for sculptures that are knotted or felted, thus marking the passage through multiple generations of hands. Finally, Kelly appropriates image documents we can instantly access electronically, interpreting and transforming what and how they depict. Here, through sculptural panels of perspex and rusted steel, he reshapes and hardens our gaze away from our screens and into other screens that fasten the flesh and choice of sight to material.-Jacob Korczynski
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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".