Notice bibliographique
Résumé
If critics are to be believed, the use of video on the theatrical stage had become something of a fad by the early years of the new millennium. “Multimedia,” wrote Lyn Gardner in the Guardian, “is a word I've come to dread in the theatre. There was a period around five years ago when you could hardly step inside a theatre to see a new play without encountering a bank of video monitors.”1 Diedrich Diederichsen recounts the similarly exasperated tone of a Berlin critic, who wrote in December 2003 of her wish for the coming year that the Berlin Volksbühne might resist using video projections just once.2 Opera, meanwhile, has been no stranger to this fascination with video. Toronto critic Peter Goddard recently wrote of “opera's video projection fetish,” quoting director Astrid Janson on the “fashionable” use of “large projections, particularly in Wagner.”3 Arguably, the ultimate product of this “fetish” has been The Tristan Project, a production of Wagner's three-act Handlung directed by Peter Sellars with a commissioned full-length video by Bill Viola. Initially presented in semistaged form (one act per evening) at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles, in December 2004 and fully staged at Paris's Opéra Bastille in April 2005, The Tristan Project attracted extraordinary media interest: interviews and preview articles flooded the press before the performances, while the review coverage was as widespread as it gets for opera. The source of the fascination? Undoubtedly, it had much to do with the contested reputations of the collaborators. If Sellars has surely outgrown his reputation as opera's bad boy, he remains a provocative figure, still capable of dividing opinion.4 Viola, meanwhile, is surely the most discussed figure in video art today: his installations have generated both critical and public interest worldwide, while the body of scholarly literature on his work has grown substantially. Yet admiration of Viola's technical skill and the sheer beauty of his work tends to be met with concerns about a superficiality and the perceived absence of the qualities—cultural critique, skepticism about art and the aesthetic—that have characterized much video art since its emergence in the late sixties and seventies (an emergence to which Viola's early work contributed).5 Here was Viola's stock-in-trade imagery: bodies floating in water and enveloped by fire, split-framed character studies summoning the allegorical resonance of Renaissance portraiture, meditative shots of natural environments—such as the desert—that are the haunts of seers and prophets. All this was true to form and likely to confirm the views both of his admirers and his detractors. Critics of The Tristan Project summoned superlatives both positive and negative, characterizing Viola's video as everything from a revelatory experience to an extended Calvin Klein advertisement.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,760 | 0,675 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».