Spaces that evolve and the artist's intent. Integrity in public art conservation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrity is neither fixed nor static - It is understood as a process of interpreting, respecting, and negotiating complexity, and at times, also contentious values. In Art, integrity is a reflection of the artwork’s identity, the meaning and significance of the artwork for the artist and to the public. In conservation, this tends to be present as aspects as reversibility, respect, and conceptuality are taken into account during the assessment and treatment of works of art. Especially, in contemporary art, the artist's idea plays an essential role in the development of any proposal related to the artwork’s preservation.<br/>Additionally, in Public Art, the concept behind the artwork is closely linked to the factors that made the artist create the artwork in a specific moment, location, etc. However, contemporary cities evolve by the moment, producing many works of public art lose their integrity as the environment oppresses its continuity while the spaces transform with new functions. Therefore, the artist's intent, and the integrity of the artwork, are sacrificed in order to preserve the piece in a new environment. <br/>Focusing on the case of Keith Haring’s mural interventions, our paper will aim to discuss cases where the necessity of preservation had deactivated the artwork’s intent. The mural Haring painted for sick children at Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris is an example. The hospital was moved due to safety issues. Later on, the mural was restored. Despite the impressive work done by conservators, there are aspects that seem to have been disregarded: Did Haring foresee this possibility-change? Would he agree on the conservation of the artwork for a wider/new public? Does conservation sometimes deactivate integrity in favour of preservation? Would it be possible to balance both statements?<br/>
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".