Bibliographic record
Abstract
The art historian Anthony Blunt (1907-1983), a homosexual and famously a Soviet spy, was a leading authority on the French painter Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665). In recent years, several scholars have noticed strange affinities between these two figures, affinities that relate to their ideas, to a common interest in secrecy and in covert knowledge, as well as to less definite attitudes that these scholars have had difficulty pinning down. This thesis proposes that these strange affinities may be explained by means of Queer Theory, which has afforded art historical scholarship a language and sets of concepts that allow the more difficult aspects of Blunt’s relationship to Poussin to be carefully anatomized. I argue that Blunt may have found in Poussin’s complex and ambiguous pictorial worlds both an inspiration for and a reflection of his multiple, contradictory identities and commitments. Meanwhile, I investigate what properties in Poussin’s art make possible this relationship, exploring how a kernel of homoerotic sensibility, entering Poussin’s oeuvre from the Arcadian pastoral tradition grows and diversifies to depict what I call queer bodies and to construct what I call queer spaces. Blunt’s art historical account of Poussin, the most influential account of the painter in the twentieth century, turns out to be but one facet of a deep and mutually-constitutive encounter between artist and art historian.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".