« Les oeuvres d’art parlent d’elles-mêmes » : l’autodescription conceptuelle et son devenir récent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study demonstrates how the long-established problematics of idea reappeared in an original fashion in self-descriptive works of conceptual art, as well as in works of contemporary artists quoting their predecessors of the 1960s. A recent drawing by the Quebecois artist Mathieu Beauséjour reveals the complexity of the issues addressed in self-descriptive works. It posts the phrase Les oeuvres parlent d’elles-mêmes, which lends itself to a two-fold reading: either the works speak of or about themselves (self-referentiality of Kosuth’s neon piece Five Words in Blue Neon), or they speak by or for themselves (the tendency toward autonomy of works seeking to rival art history in the usage of the verbal language used to describe them). These two tendencies are examined in three canonical conceptual works: Joseph Kosuth’s Five Words in Blue Neon, Dan Graham’s Schema, and Robert Morris’s Card File. However, several recent productions employ once again the process of self-description, while subverting the transparency and autonomy striven for by the models they take as sources, as is the case in the neons and textual works of the Canadian artists Ron Terada and Kelly Mark, the British artist Tracey Emin, and the Mexican artist Stephan Brüggemann. Through ironic self-depreciation and caustic praise of their forerunners, these works reveal simultaneously the hold of expectations and of institutional conditions, and the ambiguity of their critical position with respect to that context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".