The surrealist book as a cross-border space: The experimentations of Lise Deharme and Gisèle Prassinos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 0cm;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-CA">Abstract:</span></strong><span lang="EN-CA"> Following in the ‘revolutionary’ aesthetic footsteps of the post-World War One avant-garde, many writers, painters, and photographers chose to partake in interartistic collaboration, thus defying the established boundaries between the different arts and their media and putting an end to the idea of the work of art as the ultimate production of a sole individual. Artistic contributions such as those by Magritte and Man Ray for Éluard, or those by Masson for Aragon, Bataille and Leiris, are now considered classics of the surrealist book. Yet the collaboration between women writers and artists of the surrealist movement remains to this day largely unknown, notwithstanding their recognized intermedial practice. Most would combine two artistic practices in their works: writing and film (Belen a.k.a Nelly Kaplan), writing and photography (Claude Cahun), writing and painting (Leonora Carrington), or writing and drawing (Unica Zürn). In my analysis of the avant-garde book-object, I examine two examples of rethinking the book as a space of text/image experimentation in the framework of surrealist aesthetics. The first is Lise Deharme, who sees the book as a space for collaboration and intermedial dialogue, the second Gisèle Prassinos, who views the book-object as a space for playful metamorphosis. These two writers and artists upset any previous understanding of the ‘illustrated book’ and come far closer to what is referred to today as the <em>livre d’artiste</em>.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -21.6pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 21.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 21.6pt;"><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 0cm;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: FR;" lang="FR">Résumé</span></strong><span style="mso-ansi-language: FR;" lang="FR">: Fidèle à l’esthétique « révolutionnaire » propre aux avant-gardes de l’entre-deux-guerres, bon nombre d’auteurs, de peintres et de photographes se sont lancés dans l’aventure de la collaboration interartistique défiant par là les frontières entre les arts et les genres, mettant à mort l’idée de l’œuvre d’art comme l’aboutissement d’une démarche individuelle. Si les illustrations de Max Ernst pour Crevel, Tzara ou Péret, de Magritte et Man Ray pour Éluard, de Masson pour Aragon, Bataille et Leiris ou de Miro pour Breton font aujourd’hui partie des grands classiques du livre dit surréaliste, la collaboration entre femmes auteurs et artistes du mouvement surréaliste semblent encore aujourd’hui moins connue. Ces créatrices surréalistes faisaient pourtant preuve le plus souvent d’une véritable <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">praxis</em> intermédiale, c’est-à-dire que, pour la plupart, elles investissaient d’office deux arts et leur médium respectif : l’écriture et le cinéma (Belen alias Nelly Kaplan), l’écriture et la photographie (Claude Cahun), l’écriture et la peinture (Leonora Carrington) ou l’écriture et le dessin (Unica Zürn).</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0cm; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 0cm;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: FR;" lang="FR"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Les deux cas de figure que je me propose d’examiner de plus près sont représentatifs d’une nouvelle conception de l’espace livresque, telle que mise en œuvre par l’esthétique surréaliste : je m’intéresserai d’abord au livre comme espace de collaboration et de dialogue intermédial chez Lise Deharme, ensuite au livre-objet comme possible lieu de métamorphose ludique chez Gisèle Prassinos. Les deux auteures font éclater les limites anciennement assignées au « livre illustré » se rapprochant davantage de ce que l’on désigne aujourd’hui comme « livre d’artiste ». M’inspirant des recherches menées par Henri Béhar, Renée Riese Hubert, Lothar Lang et Montserrat Prudon dans le contexte du livre dit surréaliste, je m’interrogerai sur les rapports de collusion et de collision entre le texte et l’image, de même que sur le type de lecture exigé par le nouvel objet <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">livre</em>. Mon analyse prendra appui sur <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Le Cœur de Pic</em>, <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Le Poids d’un oiseau</em> et <em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brelin le frou</em> <em>ou le Portrait de famille</em>.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -21.6pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 21.6pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 21.6pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: FR;" lang="FR"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".