Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parmi les nombreuses antinomies qui traversent les écrits issus de l’art conceptuel et les textes analytiques qui en traitent, l’une des plus importantes, et pourtant des moins explorées, est celle qui oppose les différentes conceptions de l’humour. Ces conceptions proviennent d’approches de l’humour que l’on pourrait qualifier soit de subversive et déstabilisante, soit d’analytique et contraignante. Bien que ces catégories ne s’excluent pas esthétiquement et philosophiquement l’une l’autre, elles ont pourtant été mises en opposition de façon systématique. Cet article examine l’histoire de cette tension afin de souligner son importance pour la compréhension de ce qu’a été l’art conceptuel. Il accorde, entre autres, une large place au débat entre l’interprétation doctrinaire de Joseph Kosuth et l’interprétation subversive de John Baldessari de l’humour duchampien. L’humour devient dès lors un catalyseur privilégié permettant d’interroger les finalités esthétiques et philosophiques de l’art conceptuel. Finalement, ce texte, à l’aide des concepts de légèreté (levity) et de pesanteur (gravity), fait la cartographie de la brèche qui passe entre un humour débridé et un humour hermétique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".