Colloquy/débat: Apropos Aesthetic Autonomy
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The present contribution to the Colloquy takes issue with problematic positions on aesthetic autonomy in music, which have appeared over the past couple of years in the pages of this journal. The tone is frank, the intention is constructive and the point is to engage in an exchange of ideas with colleagues who may have different points of view on these matters. Resume La presente contribution au Debat critique des prises de position problematiques, apparues depuis quelques annees dans les pages de cette revue, concernant la notion d'autonomie esthetique dans le domaine musical. Le ton est franc, l'intention est constructive et le but est de susciter un echange d'idees avec des collegues dont les points de vue sur ces questions peuvent differer. Over the past decade, the notion of aesthetic autonomy has come under attack. Evidence of this is abundantly present in recent articles of our Review, where we read that the dangerous illusion of autonomy in the arts and sciences (Beverley Diamond, in Shepherd and Diamond 1998, 17) has been successfully challenged by American ethnomusicologists and popular music specialists (John Shepherd, in Shepherd and Diamond 1998, 10). According to David Gramit, we find ourselves in this state of affairs because of musicology' s consistent failure to link its object of study (the self-contained, autonomous work of Western art music) to broader political and cultural concerns (Gramit 1998, 20). Before going any further, I would like to clearly state that this letter is not a call for a return to older practices, where musicology was often reduced to middle-aged gentlemen comfortably chatting about their favourite bits of the canon over a glass of sherry at the local faculty club. In my view, good musicology has always been and should remain a bright, multicoloured, multicultural world (Shepherd, in Shepherd and Diamond 1998, 10), in which all approaches to the study of music (be they formalist, hermeneutic, aesthetic, historic, socio-economic, cultural, etc.) can be compared and criticized. It is worth noting however that there is nothing new here. Marxist-oriented historians such as Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, who founded the Annales d'histoire economique et sociale in 1929, postulated that anything can be part of historical discourse. At about the same time Max Weber's truly pioneering essay, The Rational and Social Foundations of Music, was published posthumously1 and Theodor Adorno began working towards his sociology of music.2 Also, 1 see no problem in examining the ideological underpinnings of all approaches to the study of music, which, as Gramit (1998, 20) has correctly pointed out, may intentionally or inadvertently limit the object of musicological inquiry in a way that excludes from the start much of what could fall within the scope of the discipline. Having said that, I believe we should heed Carmen Sabourin's warning against entering all too quickly into that supermarche de la pensee, which has sprung up over the past decade (1997, 1 13). Take for example Lawrence Kramer's attempt to ground a radically new musicology (which I would add in passing explicitly rejects the notion of aesthetic autonomy). In a scant few pages Kramer blithely skips through the ideas of Carl Dahlhaus, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva, with Jean-Francois Lyotard lurking unacknowledged behind the scene (Kramer 1996, 16-21). This kind of drive-thru musicology is superficial in the extreme and should be criticised as such. (The disclaimer that this brand of musicology revels intuitively in the hie et nunc in order to get beyond the aporia of modernist musicology is simply disingenuous.) In the following, I would like to bring up a few points concerning aesthetic autonomy, which appear to have been neglected in recent writings on the subject. 1. It is ironic that those who benefit most from the concept of aesthetic autonomy should be attacking it so vigorously. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle