MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3139108343 · doi:10.1353/tfr.2011.0204

The Paradox of Photography by Pierre Taminiaux

2011· article· en· W3139108343 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara Petrosky

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œFrench review · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueFrench Literature and Poetry
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMythologyFablePhotographyArtLiteratureAllegoryArt historySilencePaintingRepetition (rhetorical device)PhilosophyVisual artsAestheticsLinguistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

intersection of law and literary studies constitutes one of the most popular areas of literary studies “là-bas” (in the United States) and concludes with a lovely sentence in which moralists appropriate the silence “nécessaire à la résonance des substantifs, qui ayant absorbé les récits du monde, s’érigent en bornes de l’action des hommes” (123). Imagine the effect of adjectives! Laurent Versini describes how the narrator recounts and employs repetition, allegory, metaphor and fantasy to provide both morality and mythology. Jean-Noël Pascal briefly demonstrates how eighteenth-century fable writers either critique or copy La Fontaine, offering examples of political or social messages. Some essays include bibliographies and notes. Some respond to others. All provoke thought and perhaps, in the end, this work is less about “l’idée et ses fables,” than “les fables et les idées” that they provoke. Carleton University (ON) (Canada) Roseann Runte TAMINIAUX, PIERRE. The Paradox of Photography. New York: Rodopi, 2009. ISBN 97890 -420-2666-7. Pp. 206. $62.00. This essay is divided into four chapters entitled: No Art’s Land, Reasonable Madness, The Image, One Image, Images, and The Fascinated Eye. Taminiaux raises very important questions regarding the definition of photography, as well as its status, or lack thereof, as an art form. To do this, Taminiaux looks at the differences between painting and photography as they are described in the works of four famous French intellectuals: Baudelaire, Breton, Barthes, and Valéry. In his first chapter, he focuses primarily on Baudelaire’s work on photography entitled Le Public moderne et la photographie. For Baudelaire, photography is not an art because it lacks its own distinct history; painting has a supremacy over photography. According to Taminiaux, the nineteenth century was a period full of contradictions due not only to the development of new techniques and scientific research, but also to the nostalgic perspective from which many Romantic artists viewed the past. Baudelaire criticizes the industrial nature of photography, and dismisses its artistic potential because it “is confined to the need of practical realities” (53). In general, Romantic writers and painters, particularly Delacroix whom Baudelaire revered, could not accept this reproduction of reality through photography, “since the reality was considered alienating and even oppressive” (184). In his second chapter, he examines the works of André Breton, especially Nadja and L’Amour fou. For Breton, photography plays an important role in surrealist aesthetics: “It allowed him to describe what could not be described by mere words” (186). Breton uses photographs in Nadja to explore the idea of mental illness. Taminiaux’s extensive knowledge of works on the history of mental disorders in France is apparent here. Breton uses photography to illustrate his texts and to link literature and photography. In discussing Walter Benjamin’s essay Petite histoire de la photographie, Taminiaux explains that it was during the 1920s and 1930s, with the rise of the Dada and Surrealist avant-garde, that photography started to be perceived as an art. In his third chapter, Taminiaux examines Barthes’s famous essay La Chambre claire. The novelty for Taminiaux is the fact that Barthes wrote a very subjective text focusing on the “I” and expressing his emotions at the sight of old pictures of his mother. Taminiaux explains in detail the differences between studium and Reviews 803 punctum. The two main differences between Benjamin and Barthes according to Taminiaux are that for Barthes, pictures are “defined by their singularity” (105) and should not be “treated as elements of a vast collection” (105). In his last chapter , Taminiaux focuses on Paul Valéry’s 1939 discourse before the Académie Fran- çaise. This speech, entitled “Le Discours du centenaire de la photographie,” given just before the Second World War when photography was not yet viewed as an academic concept, proposed to “demonstrate the possible relationship between literature and photography” (154); and that speech changed everything because “for him, even the best descriptive writer could never match the essential precision of the new medium” (147). For Valéry, photography is modern because it “is the result of technical accomplishments” and “because it allows for a specific bind between the origins of mankind and...

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 candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,804
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

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)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,224
Écart entre enseignants0,191 · 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.

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
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œFrench reviewMême sujetFrench Literature and PoetryTravaux en français237 207