MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379425431 · doi:10.1353/see.2016.0081

McQuillen, Colleen The Modernist Masquerade: Stylizing Life, Literature and Costumes in Russia (review)

2016· article· en· W4379425431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olga Sobolev

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Slavonic and East European Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoviet and Russian History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorPoliticsMotif (music)Art historyLiteratureArtHistory of literatureHistorySociologyAestheticsPhilosophyLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SEER, 94, 1, JANUARY 2016 154 McQuillen, Colleen. The Modernist Masquerade: Stylizing Life, Literature and Costumes in Russia. Studies of the Harriman Institute. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 2013. xiii + 282 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $29.95 (paperback). Given the number of publications attempting to find a master trope for early modernist aesthetics, the venture is clearly an alluring one. For any new efforts the yardstick of comparison would be Green and Swan’s The Triumph of Pierrot (University Park, PA, 1986) and Douglas Clayton’s Pierrot in Petrograd (Montreal, 1993) — vast interpretative works exploring the notion of commedia dell’arte as an extended metaphor for the modernist imagination and an expression of fin-de-siècle cultural views. Coleen McQuillen hangs her own interpretation of the modern from a different kind of peg; the motif of masquerade (comprising masked and costume balls) is seen as a prism for refracting the diversity of artistic cross-currents of the time, and as a unifying platform for the wide spectrum of political and cultural debates. Such an analysis, without doubt, provides a valuable contribution to modernist studies, but in order to appreciate this vantage point the reader would still have benefitted from a brief comparison with the established scholarly landmarks. The book’s sub-title specifies clearly the terrain of examination, focused on ‘stylizing life, literature and costume in Russia’. The same type of clarity, however, does not apply to the chronological boundaries of the study, which range from 1872 to 1914 (p. 3). These limits require further explanation and justification, for the earlier date is most commonly associated with the Russian realist doctrine, while the activities of Russian avant-garde authors (extensively discussed in various chapters) would extend far beyond 1914. The book is divided into two parts, the first concentrating primarily on the theoretical issues of ‘parody, imitation and stylisation as discursive strategies in literature and in social performances of personal identity’ (p. 29). The three chapters in this section are well researched and suggest an original reading of the era’s social and cultural agenda (ethical, political and gender issues); but the whole is unfortunately somewhat less than the sum of its parts: in their totality these chapters do not coalesce into a coherent interpretation of the modernist imagination, defined here in terms of ‘relativistic approaches to art and self’ (p. 25), or more specifically through loosening the links between the signifier and signified. The first two chapters seem to demonstrate the opposite. When examining costume parties in Sologub’s Petty Demon and Dostoevskii’s Demons, chapter one affirms a strict one-way correlation between ethics and aesthetics, when everything beautiful speaks of goodness, and impurity reveals itself through the distorted. The same kind of referential rigidity is asserted in chapter two, which associates political conservatism with national costumes, as opposed to the widespread trend of impersonating foreign nationals among terrorists in the years surrounding 1905. REVIEWS 155 The second part explores the issues of reception by treating costume design as a legible poetic language. Informative, engaging and meticulously researched, this is, surely, the strongest section of the book. Some justification is offered for the study’s chronological starting point as it mentions the weakening of the Russian state control of visual and performing arts in the 1870s–80s (p. 119). The overall narrative also becomes more spontaneous, more fluid, and effectively more in tune with the playful and carnivalesque subject-matter of the work (as compared to the discourse of the first part, heavily charged with specialized, and at times cumbersome, terminology). Chapter four interprets non-representative costumes (such as ‘Dawn’, ‘Fantasy’ or ‘Duma’) worn at the series of balls hosted by the St Petersburg Academy of Arts, while chapter five ‘constructs an imaginative projection of the cultural legacy through the character costumes of mythological and historic figures’. In both chapters insightful parallels are drawn with the writings of Leonid Andreev (Black Maskers), Anna Akhmatova and Viacheslav Ivanov, leading (chapter six) to the inquiry into the abstract costume practices in the avant-garde works of Blok, Maiakovskii and Kruchenykh. Seen as an utmost representation of semantic freedom, their works are juxtaposed (chapter seven) to its antithetical...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Slavonic and East European ReviewSame topicSoviet and Russian HistoryFrench-language works237,207