Donald Kuspit ve Jean Baudrillard'da sanat?n sonuyla ilgili tart??malar ba?lam?nda yeni yap?t ?retme dinamikleri
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geride kalan y?zy?l?n son ?eyre?inde; kimi sanat ele?trmenleri ve d???n?rler taraf?ndan, ortaya at?lmaya ba?lanan sanat?n sonunun geldi?i s?ylemlerinin, t?m d?nyada pek ?ok d?zlemde kendisine tart??ma alan? buldu?u bilinmektedir. G?n?m?z sanat?nda hi?bir ?eyin bir di?erine kar??t olmad???n? savunan Baudrillard, bu durumun ger?ek olanla ger?e?in temsili olan?n yer de?i?tirmesine neden oldu?una ve ger?ek olan?n, kendi yerini benze?imine terketti?ine dikkat ?eker. Trilling'in, Baudrillard'?n g?r???ne ko?ut duran; ?Sanat?n, daha ?nce e?i g?r?lmedik bi?imde yay?ld???, eskiden pek anla??lmayan ya da itici bulunan sanat bi?imlerinin kolayl?kla kabul edildi?i, pop?ler ve ticari sanat?n, eskiden ?st d?zey sanat ad? verilen ?eyle inan?lmaz ?ekilde yan yana geldi?i?? a??klamas? baz? ger?eklik dengelerinin ciddi anlamda de?i?ti?ini kan?tlamaktad?r. Donald Kuspit, ?Sanat?n Sonu? adl? kitab?nda ele alm?? oldu?u sanat?n sonu s?recinin kayna??n?, bilin?d???n?n terkedilmesi olarak saptar. Romantizmle beraber ba?lam?? olan bilin?d???n?n ke?fini sanat?n esin kayna?? olarak g?r?r ve bilin?d??? k?lt?n?n ??k???'n? sanat?n sonuna dair bir t?r milad olarak, sonun ba?lang?c? olarak niteleyen Kuspit, bu ??k??le, hem modern sanat?n, hem de sanat?n sonunun geldi?ini iddia eder. 20. y?zy?l?n ikinci yar?s?nda ortaya ??kan sanatsal/d???nsel hareketler ve bunlar?n resim sanat?n?n s?regelen ser?venine etkileri bilinmektedir. G?n?m?z sanat ortam?, ?retme y?ntemleri, sanat??n?n yaratma edimi ve dinamikleri d???n?ld???nde, 1960'tan bug?ne sanat?n zamanda ald??? yol ?a??rt?c? derecede ?e?itlilik arz etmektedir. Modernist resimle ba?layarak sanat eserinde meydana gelen k?r?lmaya de?in ge?en s?recin hareketlendirdi?i periyot, i?erik itibariyle sanat kar??-sanat fl?rt?n? b?nyesinde bar?nd?rmaktad?r. Bu paradoksun ortaya ??kard??? tabloya bak?larak sanat ortamlar?n?n ?e?itlendi?i s?ylenebilir. Ancak bu ?o?ullu?un zenginle?me mi, yoksa bir t?r y???nla?mas? m? oldu?u sorusunun cevaps?z kald??? da a?ikard?r. As it?s known, in the last quarter of the last century, the speculations about the imminent end of the arts proposed by some critics and philosophers have found a great platform as can be seen all over the world. Baudrillard; arguing the idea that there is nothing against the other in the contemporary art; attracts our attention to this situation?s being the reason for replacing the matter of being reality and being the representation of reality. The explanation of Trilling paralleling Baudrillard?s concept saying ?art is spreading out as never seen before, the art forms which are admitted repulsive before and do not make sense are easily accepted, the popular and commercial arts come together with the art called higher-up in the past in an unbelievable way?? proves that some reality balances have changed substantially. Donald Kuspit determines the source of the end of the art process which he dealt with in his book called ?the end of art?, as the dereliction of the subconsciousness. He considers the discovery of the unconscious that started with the Romantism as the source of inspration and describing the decadence of unconscious cult as a kind of turning point concerning the end of arts. Kuspit claims that within this collapse both the modern arts and the arts itself have reached the endpoint. The artistic/ideological movements and their effects on the on-going story of the painting, which emerged in the second half of the 20th century, are known. Considering the present-day art environment, producing techniques, the creativity deed and the Dynamics of the artist, since the 1960 the way arts cruised over time is seen to vary impressively. The period by the process with the modernist painting until the break in the work of art, in respect to the content contains the flirting of art-vs art. Looking at the statement brought out by this paradox it can be said that the art ambiances have varied. However, it is obvious that the question asking what if this plurality is an enrichment or an agglomeration still remains unanswered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it