Ecosophy and socially engaged art. A practical investigation into contemporary curatorial production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research unfolds through a sequence of curatorial projects that I carried out in Britain and Italy, and explores the implications of embedding Félix Guattari’s ecosophy into socially engaged curatorial practice. Moving In / Moving Out addresses ecology as both a matter of ethical values (Fowkes, 2006) and of socio-political critique (Miles, 2014), and questions curating as an authorial and selective practice. Looking at ecology through the lens of Guattari’s ecosophy (1989) – an ethico-aesthetic articulation of everyday praxis that rejects hierarchies and favours interdependence – Quid Pro Quo: Negotiating Futures explores the effects that the notions of transversality and heterogeneity have had on the identity and ethics of my practice. Questioning the theoretical underpinnings of the work of selected curators (O’Neill, 2012; Thompson, 2011; Lind, 2010; Jacobs, 1993), Practices of Sustainability uses ecosophy to challenge hierarchical mental habits that still shape contemporary art production. “Vulnerability”, “grounded listening” (Gablik, 1992; Kester, 2005) and interdisciplinarity are understood as tools for a renewed ecology of practices (Haraway, 2016). My activity as communication coordinator at Manifesta 12 Palermo identifies the curatorial with a networked series of activities and movements of associations (Latour, 2009) that engage with the unknowable potential of what is called “the public” (Arden, 2014). Riflessioni sull’Abitare addresses the aesthetics as a place for a collective ecocritical inquiry (Morton, 2009), and plays with the traditionally opposed categories of proximity and distance to question how identities and relations are formed, perceived and challenged. Ecosophy enables an understanding of the curatorial as an agency and responsibility shared by all involved in socially engaged art projects. In these projects, the curator is not an “enlightened expert” (Rancière, 1991), but an engaged citizen who uses a passionately weak (Majewska, 2019), interdisciplinary and critical practice to transform the mentality of life in the shared οἶκος.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".