Re-coding the na(rra)tive : disrupting the colonial lens in search of my Maaori self : an exegesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Fine Arts at Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of Maaori with the Western gaze is complex, and it is in complexity that my practice sits. I begin this exegesis introducing the influence of the colonial lens on Tangata Whenua identities and my lens-based practice, discussing the limiting essentialist paradigms of identity that have generated and maintained colonial stereotypes and notions of authenticity. I then discuss through my moving image work where do we come from | what are we | where are we going (after gauguin) (2022) how simulation can be used as a means to critique and re-code signifiers, or 'signs', of authentic Indigenous identities. This is supported through an analysis of artists and creatives whose use of the lens has demonstrated how colonial tools and narratives can be reclaimed and reworked to suit Indigenous peoples. Within this whakapapa, I emphasize the assertion of cultural and political agency, and advocate for multiplicity as a departure from limiting essentialist notions of authenticity. Reflecting on a notable shift toward ambiguity in my practice, I explore how my photographic body of work the sitters (2022) intersects with Trickster consciousness, blurring binaries of gender, culture, time, and space, stepping further into liminality as a mode for expression of a more diverse Maaori identity. I conclude by considering how Indigenous Futurisms can make available new ways for contemporary Indigenous identities to be imagined and expressed outside colonial impositions. This exegesis is an extensive enquiry of the development of my lens-based practice over the years 2021-2022, suggesting further areas of development and exploration.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".