La politique en embuscade : trois débats autour de l’œuvre autonome et ses effets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’opposé de la théorie de l’art pour l’art qui postule la nature fondamentalement apolitique de l’art, les historiens de l’art ont, depuis le xviiie siècle, soutenu l’idée qu’il fallait toujours penser l’autonomie des œuvres à partir de la politique. En revenant sur trois débats célèbres portant sur la question de l’autonomie des œuvres – le différend entre Lessing et Winckelmann autour du Laocoon, la discussion de Benjamin et Adorno sur la politisation des avant-gardes dans les années 1930 et les échanges entre l’artiste et écrivaine Coco Fusco et les contempteurs du tableau de Dana Schutz, Cercueil ouvert [Open Casket], exposé à la Whitney Biennial (New York) en 2017 –, il s’agit de mettre en évidence que les auteurs qui se battent pour doter l’art d’une agentivité politique sont les mêmes qui refusent de céder à la pression des événements et de renoncer à l’autonomie de l’œuvre au nom de son efficacité politique.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".