L’artiste universitaire, l’artiste théoricien : vers un paradigme intellectuel et artistique de recherche-création
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméÀ partir de l’exemple fourni par les textes théoriques sur l’art visuel publiés par le peintre russe Wassily Kandinsky, je m’intéresse, dans cet article, à la méthodologie transdisciplinaire de la recherche-création ; en dépassant la simple réflexion d’un artiste sur son propre travail, la recherche-création réfute les idées reçues — fausses et inexactes — selon lesquelles la création est une forme de recherche et qu’un créateur en contexte universitaire est, nécessairement, un chercheur. Puisant à même le savoir produit par toutes les formes de création artistique et par les multiples domaines de la recherche que sont les études littéraires, l’histoire de l’art, la philosophie, etc., la recherche-création telle que pratiquée par Wassily Kandinsky, avant la lettre, montre bien que la théorie artistique dépendante d’une pratique créatrice peut, en explorant les langages de l’art et de la réflexion « savante », proposer des manières stimulantes d’être artiste théoricien, à l’université — et ainsi de faire de la recherche-création. AbstractStarting from Wassily Kansindsky’s theories of visual arts, I discuss, in this paper, the transdisciplinary methodology of research-creation; while exceeding the artist’s naïve reflection upon their own work, research-creation refutes the false and inexact common preconceptions that artistic creation is equivalent to academic research and that a practitioner working at the university is automatically a researcher. Drawing from all creative forms and expressions, and from academic fields such as literature studies, art history, philosophy, etc., research-creation as practised by Wassily Kandinsky—before the concept was actually coined—shows that a theory of art depending on the theorist’s practice of said art can, while exploring art’s and academia’s different languages, suggest stimulating ways of being an artist and a theoretician at the university—hence, practising research-creation.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it