Toucher des yeux: nouvelles po tiques de l’ekphrasis ed. par Ginette Michaud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
offered by the captions and what Barthes calls the “punctum,” the visual shock of the photos brought about by the realization that “the people captured in them ‘are dead and are going to die’” (162). It is a contrast the author finds is often characteristic of Holocaust literature and, in particular, of the testimony of its survivors:“[M]y central aim in this book is that theoretical ethical knowledge cannot prepare us to respond to the ethical demands of atrocity”(26).What frequently happens is that attempts—wellintentioned as they might be—to rationalize and explain the Holocaust often lead to a defensive posture that ends up repressing or even ignoring the traumatic and traumatizing dimension of victims’ experiences. In making her case, Marquart contrasts the accounts of mainly two survivors. One is Jorge Semprún, whom she places among France’s and Spain’s “most famous authoritative intellectual witness writers” (9). Semprún’s intellectual approach is problematic, however, because it manages to turn witness testimony into self-centered“masterly narratives”that claim to speak for others. These are accounts that also tend to impose norms and values reflecting present needs or ideologies in terms of a universalizing logic or some artistic and creative designs. The other witness is Charlotte Delbo, a survivor and author whose work provides an implicit critique of the “well-intentioned respondents to atrocity”(9). Delbo thus shows how inadequate rationalizing attempts are at grasping or representing what remains forever horrifying and incomprehensible, and her writing “bears witness to aspects of camp life that demolish our conceptualizations of the human” (86). The experience and witnessing of atrocity brings up another question, posed by Irving Howe some thirty years ago: “[H]ow could human beings, raised in the center of European civilization, do this?” (New Republic 27 Oct. 1986: 33). Marquart’s book is a timely reminder of the crucial importance these issues still have today. Ohio State University Karlis Racevskis Michaud, Ginette, éd. Toucher des yeux: nouvelles poétiques de l’ekphrasis. Montréal: PUM, 2015. ISBN 978-2-7606-3565-4. Pp. 249. Cette livraison d’Études françaises (51.2) vient à point nommé dans les débats qui ne cessent de se renouveler sur la question de l’ekphrasis. Il s’inscrit dans la lignée des recherches consacrées aux relations entre le littéraire et le visuel, parmi lesquelles se trouve le numéro publié par French Studies (64 [2010]: 255–393) centré sur le même propos: la recherche de nouvelles poétiques de l’ekphrasis. Ce numéro se distingue de son homologue anglais par sa portée interdisciplinaire et par son exploration de pratiques ekphrastiques plus expérimentales, comme le titre le suggère d’emblée. Outre la présentation, ce numéro comporte treize contributions (recouvrant la peinture, le dessin,la photographie,la musique) agrémentées d’une“Table des œuvres reproduites”, des biographies des “Collaborateurs” et des “Résumés”. En dépit de l’acception 230 FRENCH REVIEW 91.1 Reviews 231 traditionnelle de l’ekphrasis en tant que “transposition verbale d’une représentation visuelle” (6), par laquelle l’éditrice ouvre la discussion, on ne suit pas l’orientation structuraliste de cette définition, puisqu’on adopte une approche déconstructive pour (re)penser l’ekphrasis. On se penche peut-être un peu lourdement sur Jacques Derrida pour penser et ne pas voir (l’œuvre d’art) et sur Jean-Luc Nancy pour “parler de l’œuvre d’art en ne la faisant pas parler” (12). Repenser l’ekphrasis demande ainsi une démarche qui va à l’encontre de “toutes les visions préétablies, codifiées, uniformisantes et tendanciellement exhaustives” de la tradition occidentale (157). Parmi les mises en pratique les plus originales de cette approche, où voir l’image ou en parler n’entre plus en ligne de compte, se trouvent celles d’Isabelle Décarie, Philip Armstrong et Jean-Michel Rabaté. Décarie nous initie à toucher des yeux (nous renvoyant au titre de ce numéro) dans tout aveuglement que requiert ce qui résiste à la vue et demeure dérobé (102). Armstrong attire notre attention sur les expressions ekphrastiques...
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".