Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Poetics of the BodyThinking with Andrés Montoya Stephanie Fetta (bio) I am aware of my heartbeat, and my neck and jaw tense slightly as I consider the painting by Andrés Montoya, the poet impetus for this special issue of Chiricú. Known as the winner of the American Book Award, Montoya also painted various watercolors, while knowing he was dying of leukemia at age thirty-one. A roughly strewn lone skeleton, the variably black paint disrupts the solidity I expect to see to announce the a priori condition of death. The conundrum of presence/absence of personhood and death: this issue focuses on the growing awareness of the personhood of the material body—the soma—the flesh-being intertwined with the mind and, nevertheless, the primary entity of our being. The soma lies in support of our mental desires, aversions, and will, but also responds to our moment-by-moment lived experience before our personalities can. With this understanding of corporal subjectivity, the skeleton becomes an expression of the soma; it presents human remains as also a continuing being-ness. The skeleton reminds us we are flesh beings before we are psychologically conceived personalities, and in death, we return to flesh beings. The skeleton found in many of Montoya’s watercolors continues the trajectory of his poetry where the legacies of colonialisms and hemispheric spiritual and poetic traditions are discussed from the perspective of the soma, the cognitive flesh body. The somewhat to-scale proportions of the head, chest, spine, and limbs of the skeleton contrast with the hand bones. These should be described as the hand’s bones, which, like the skeleton’s feet, are less anatomically realistic. Their disproportions visually cue the microsubjectivity Montoya gives to body parts in his poetry. They are massive hands, emphasized even more than the feet, a prominence that speaks to the limitations of an individual’s capacity to modify their world or exert unbridled influence, their reliance on the will of others. The Cartesian mind uses the body for its will; it is probably not a coincidence that the hands and feet are the two primary biological tools to implement the mind’s will. In the final instance, in death, the mind reckons with its ultimate failure to act, its inability to continue its own life, the reality of social interdependence, human frailty, and temporality. Or is it that thus enlarged, they seek to invoke the wanting, [End Page 5] giving, capable, yet empty hands of a poetic subject, longing for God and social justice? No longer invoking a human personage, the skeleton provokes recognition of the material durability during and after the life of the mind. A person who, in the form of a skeleton, hangs in the high school or college biology lab or the doctor’s office calls forth the finitude and forgettability and, by some measure, the futility of all that seems so captivating or crucial to us each day. Montoya’s skeleton reminds my organs and muscles that each of us could end up an anonymous and anatomically unremarkable, structural human exemplum. The confluence between the soma of Montoya’s painted skeleton and its poetic apparition are the premise of Felicia Zamora’s poem included in this issue, “Shared Juries,” after Andrés Montoya: You too,dearest Andrés, understood where the lionlay in wait: in the valleys, in the fields, inthe cage of bone we call ribs, in the cage of bone we call skull, in the cage ofstreets we call society, in my ownthoughts as I doubt worthinessof my limbs in trees The threat of violent death suggested by the perfunctory image of skull and cross-bones plays into my somatic response as does the more playful, now internationally recognized calavera art and global iconography, where la Santa Muerte is wed with Chicanx graffiti fonts. The fonts themselves, now recognizable elicitations of Chicanx culture, death, life, materiality, and pleasure, have found their way onto high-end clothing lines in the United States, taco trucks on Vancouver Island, in British Columbia, and Canada, and have inspired Japanese cholo culture, international tattoo art, and beyond.1 Images of personified death...
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 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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».