Le rôle du discours dans l’art contemporain: œuvre ou parergon?
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
Les textes explicatifs ont ete adoptes comme des elements essentiels de la museographie des expositions au 18e siecle. Avec l’avenement de l’art contemporain dans les annees 1920, un changement important s’est mis en branle. Suivant l’affirmation que n’importe quel objet peut etre a priori considere comme de l’art, les expositions ont du mobiliser des lignes directives afin d’assurer les conditions d’un rapprochement entre un public et une œuvre parfois incomprehensible ou difficile d’acces. Le texte d’accompagnement a ainsi conquis une position cle qu’il n’avait jamais eu auparavant, les œuvres d’art contemporain se transformant ainsi en « textobjets » (Cauquelin, 1996). Dans ce contexte disruptif, est-il possible que le discours explicatif d’une oeuvre devienne plus qu’un supplement, evoluant ainsi vers le statut de sa partie prenante? Ou bien agirait-il plutot comme un « parergon » au sens kantien du terme, autrement dit d’un accessoire, un hors-d’œuvre, attribut auquel est parfois reduit le cadre du tableau? The explanation texts were adopted as fundamental elements of the exhibition’s museography in the 18 th century. With the emergence of the contemporary art movements in the 1920’s, an important transformation took place. Following the assertion that every object can be a priori considered a works of art, the exhibitions had to determine guidelines in order to assure a link between the public and a work that could sometimes turn out to be incomprehensible. The accompanying text then conquered a position it had not yet achieved, as the works of art became “textobjects” (Cauquelin, 1996). In this disruptive context, is it possible that the piece’s explanation discourse becomes more than a supplement, evolving towards a part of the piece itself? Or would it primarily act as a “parergon” in the Kantian sense, an accessory, an hors d’oeuvre, characteristic that is generally attributed to the painting’s frame?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it