MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2550691698 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2016.0021

Pre-Raphaelite Masculinities: Constructions of Masculinity in Art and Literature ed. by Amelia Yeates and Serena Trowbridge

2016· article· en· W2550691698 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Julie Codell

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMasculinityQueerArtArt historyPoetryFemininityGender studiesSociologyLiterature

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Pre-Raphaelite Masculinities: Constructions of Masculinity in Art and Literature ed. by Amelia Yeates and Serena Trowbridge Julie Codell (bio) Pre-Raphaelite Masculinities: Constructions of Masculinity in Art and Literature edited by Amelia Yeates and Serena Trowbridge; pp. xii + 251. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2014. $109.95 cloth. This excellent edited collection re-evaluates the art and literature of the Pre-Raphaelites and Aesthetes in the contexts not only of gender but also of intertextuality, reception, empire, and regionalism. Exploring unstable, contested, and fragmented masculinities from the 1860s onward, the authors range among paintings, illustrations, critical reviews, and literature, dissecting artists’ challenges to hegemonic masculinities. While the term “Pre-Raphaelite” is guaranteed to attract readers, the Brotherhood remains largely absent here. The authors focus on second-generation Pre-Raphaelites and Aesthetes (without clarifying either group’s aesthetic identities). There are three overarching themes: critical reception, internal contradictions in works in which artists or writers struggle with and against conventional masculinities, and the intertextual complexities of representing masculinity across literature and art. Amelia Yeates and Eleanor Fraser Stansbie use reception to measure responses to conflicted masculinities. Yeates examines critics’ pathologizing of Edward Burne-Jones’s androgynous males; she also reads style through a moral and religious “manliness” discourse that was tied to health. Attacking Burne-Jones’s figures as unhealthy, critics questioned the artist’s own mental health. Such pathologizing echoed attacks on early Brotherhood images of females who defied conventional femininity. “Queer” was Henry James’s term for Burne-Jones’s art, but James also found his figures’ androgyny enchanting. Stansbie explores the contexts of two of William Holman Hunt’s three versions of The Light of the World (1851–53, Keble College, Oxford; 1851–56, Manchester Art Gallery; 1900–04, St. Paul’s, London). Stansbie contextualizes these paintings in relation to muscular Christianity and Hunt’s other masculinized depictions of Christ. The hostile reception of the first version’s androgynous, effeminate Christ, whose bejewelled robe seemed dangerously Catholic, was due to its exhibition’s coinciding with anti-Catholic hostility to the re-establishment of the hierarchy of bishops in Britain. The third version, sent to the “white colonies” of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada, with its manlier Christ, coincided with imperialist discourses. It was displayed in Tasmania alongside skulls of Tasmanian Aborigines and the skeleton of Truganini, mistakenly believed to have been the last Aborigine. In this context, the bejewelled robe seemed “redolent of the richness of colonial mineral spoils” (210). Jay Sloan, Ingrid Hanson, and Rosemary Mitchell closely read texts or images for internal conflicts and oscillations between conventional and alternative masculinities. Examining two “modes” or “poetic ‘incarnations’” of manhood in Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s early work (11), Sloan questions [End Page 193] earlier feminist assertions that women were mere signs for Pre-Raphaelite artists. Instead, he argues that “an undifferentiated notion of a universalized imperialist ‘male’ gaze obscures the very real differences that existed among Victorian male artists,” whose masculinities were sometimes transgressive (12–13). Attentive to subtle nuances in Rossetti’s “Jenny” (1870), Sloan also discusses Rossetti’s “Pilgrim of Love figure,” who blends human and religious love, as a type of alternative masculinity that runs through many poems. He concludes that Rossetti distanced himself from normative masculinity. He recommends reading Rossetti “intertextually and intermodally, as offering not one, but multiple masculinities which both inform and challenge one another within his work.” Sloan’s revisionism demonstrates that Rossetti blurred the boundaries between masculine and feminine spheres; Sloan thus upends the widely held view that Rossetti endorsed phallocentric “‘male’ power and privilege” (11). Analyzing William Morris’s Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs (1876), Hanson suggests some “cohesive characteristics” of the hegemonic masculinity that Morris resists: “courage, will and self-control, and an opposition to the bestial and the feminine or effeminate” (35). Morris presents a “communal masculinity” (35) that expands and re-examines these characteristics. Curiously, critics saw Morris’s dreamy, moody, and passionate males as manly, healthy, and virile. But Hanson insists that Morris undermines the political stability and imperialism associated with manliness and underscores the performativity of masculinity throughout the poem. He omits the saga’s long sections...

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,737
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,343

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesTravaux en français237 207