Bibliographic record
Abstract
On a en mémoire la phrase en forme d’injonction qui clôt « L’oeuvre d’art à l’époque de sa reproductibilité technique » de Walter Benjamin : « Voilà l’esthétisation de la politique que pratique le fascisme. Le communisme y répond par la politisation de l’art. » Qu’en fut-il de cette promesse ? Quel(s) usage(s) politique(s) – et en quel sens du mot politique – les artistes ont-ils fait des possibilités que les pratiques nouvelles de l’art que décrivait Benjamin dans ce texte ouvraient à l’orée du 20e siècle ? Et qu’ont-ils fait en ce sens de ce nouveau rapport au réel qu’elles instruisaient tant du côté de la production que de celui de la réception ? Nous répondrons à ces questions en étudiant, à travers quatre grandes figures de la politisation de l’art, quatre formes exemplaires de (re)montage/(re)mixage : s’insérer/recontextualiser (Joseph Beuys), prélever/composer (Luigi Nono), enquêter/documenter (Hans Haacke), implanter/suspendre (Max Neuhaus).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".