What is new in new media art education? \nA critical discourse analysis of the mythologies of media art education at the university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation investigates the training and education of new media artists in higher education. Based on textually described orientations, rationales, and best practices I analyzed discourses that bear on the development of curricular and pedagogical approaches to educate practitioners and professionals in new media arts. Using a critical discourse analysis methodology, I investigated the most predominant concepts, statements, and discursive formations in academic texts published on this topic from the 1980s’ until today. I bring forward the ideologies, the theories, the discursive legacies and discursive patterns that characterize new media art education, and shape the culture of those involved in teaching future media artists. One of the central points of this analysis is the emphatic and cyclic rhetoric of the adjective of ‘new,’ which is embedded in discourses that curiously express ‘old’ inherited disciplinary pedagogies and assumptions. I also examine the perceived and expressed roles of new media artists, and the varied proposals of how these roles can best be cultivated through curricular programs. The analysis of the discourses of the so-called new pedagogies for media art education revealed what is, as well as what is not, new in the education of media artists at the university. The predominant discourses of new media art practices are characterized by calls for changes in the pedagogies in place. Yet this rhetoric is consistently confronted with the inert architecture of the institutions of higher education. I situate the discursive communities and their teaching-learning interactions in the systemic context of the modern western university that promotes a neoliberal orientation—especially in regards to the education of artists. \nThis study provides an informed critical understanding of the discourses that have, to date, crystallized in this relatively young field, and to a demonstration of the (un-)likelihood of newness in media art education, in spite of fast-evolving technology, and of the expanding scope of practices of the communities within this field.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".