De las artes plásticas a la música: Pierre Boulez, a la escultura de Paul Klee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss the issue of how to analyze relations between the different arts (particularly between music and painting) in terms which do justice to the complex nature of such relations. First we enumerate and briefly examine three main classical methodological approaches to the issue: one which considers artworks as inserted in a Zeitgeist, common and characteristic of their respective epochs; another one that tries to elucidate a certain common theme or subject by taking into account the personal poetic universes of the individual artists; and a third one, which focuses exclusively on the immanent elements of structural affinity between the arts which are being compared. An additional, fourth approach is considered, one that leans on the creative, perceptual strategies manifesting themselves in artworks. Then, we discuss a text by Pierre Boulez on Paul Klee, which does not exclusively espouse any of these four approaches, but rather explores all of them. We will show how the gaze Boulez casts on Klee, from creator to creator, illustrates and reveals that, among all four methods, it is the fourth one which turns out to be the most fecund, particularly in terms of its consequences for poietic activity itself – on the condition that our thought be granted the possibility to reveal the poietic process, which may not necessarily be evident to all and every observer.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".