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
Juuso Tervo has done a brilliant review that precisely fingers many concerns I have with a visual studies approach and my championing of some specific authors of contemporary art, which he claims are caught by international market place. I especially appreciate his careful analysis of my worry when it comes to designer capitalism and my support for Badiou and Deleuze|Guattari's approach to reposition 'aesthetics' as it has been theorized, despite tensions and differences that exist between their respective positions. Badiou, contra Tervo's statement, wishes to decouple or disestablish philosophy's hold on art via his inaesthetics, while Deleuze reforms Kant's aesthetics by standing him on his head. Deleuze and Badiou remain poles apart. All in all, it is a joy to read that problematic of non-representation is a direction Juuso embraces and continues to develop in his own unique way via Lacan, who also troubles representational thought by theorizing gap or stain of Real.There are three concepts I would like to review that address his concerns, which will further complexities of what are at stake for future of art and art education in an age where digitalization is changing landscapes of imagery. It is, as Juuso Tervo points out, ethics of virtual ReaT'that have, for me, import against forms of'soft'fascism of corporate control that persist throughout designer capitalism. The virtual dimension of Real is Open in Deleuze|Guattarian philosophical thought where a 'true' future persists, rather than a future that is always already possible. It is exploration of such a virtual dimension by what I call an without authority that finds itself In any-space-whatsoever, which I am pursuing. This Deleuzian phrase (espace quelconque) is used specifically to identify any artist who is exploring virtual Real so that representation is deterritorialized. Such artists are nomadic.Juuso positions me as drawing an either/ or distinction between visual [screen] culture and contemporary art, when indeed my search is to find nomadic artists who are capable of exploiting virtual Real ethically (and politically, but this political will be qualified later when developing three conceptualizations) regardless where they find themselves on artistic, popular, or screen landscape. I felt that representational thinking was at a deadlock between neoliberal forces as exemplified basically by visual popular culture and proponents of critical theory, where critical resistance and critique itself had become just another category. The social justice arena has been taken over by Right to manage difference. This conflict is shaped by a Hegelian master-slave dialectics, whereas Deleuze|Guattari's affirmative philosophy attempts to rethink difference initself as another approach toward change as singular and immanent.This brings me to claim that within capitalist control societies there is no Outside [le Dehors] to work with-no future. The nomadic artists that I mention cannot escape into an open zone that exempts them from forces of institutionalized capitalism. More importantly, it is force of their intervention into hegemony of representation that sets event of a future to come. When it comes to an avant-garde without authority, my stance is not a bifurcation as Juuso Tervo maintains between the Symbolic-Imaginary and 'incorruptible' Real, that is between representation and non-representation. This would repeat a negative dialectics that I see has come to a stalemate. Deleuze|Guattari do not retain representational negation of difference, rather, they work with a paradoxical logic of three kinds of virtual synthesis, each arranging multiplicity of elements of primary processes in a different way, as well as in non-chronological time. The simplest is a connective synthesis where a succession of similar elements is contracted into a homogeneous series through resemblance; another is conjunctive synthesis that connects more or less different elements Into a heterogeneous series and disjunctive synthesis, which connects elements only through difference. …
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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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