L’insectarium de l’histoire de l’art ou le pouvoir de fascination de la peinture (Hommage à Daniel Arasse)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author explores the way in which art historians, mostly French, have made a theoretical use of insects to analyze practices of painting and the modalities of the glance. Attention to painted flies in Renaissance painting or the modalities of vision specific to some insects such as stick insects has encouraged reflections on visuality and modes of representation. In the form of a tribute to art historian Daniel Arasse, the author reviews his interpretations, after Giorgio Vasari and Andre Chastel, of pictorial details such as the fly. In works of the Renaissance, as both Christ's symbol and macabre detail, the fly carries several meanings and Daniel Arasse brings to light the polysemy of these pictorial signs. In her analysis of fifteenth-century scenes of exorcism, the present author stresses the proximity of these small creatures, rendered in an illusory manner, with various embodiments of the devil expectorated by the possessed. This devil in motion is not a stable motif; like a pictorial collage, it condenses an amalgam of details of insects with sexual and phantasmagoric connotations. In her study of representations of insects, the author concentrates her attention on the fascinating power of these images.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".