Marcel Broodthaers and Fred Wilson : contemporary strategies for institutional criticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats.L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse.Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse.Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Abstracf:This thesis compares two contemporary artists who practice institutional criticism, Marcel Broodthaers and Fred Wilson.Looking specifically at Broodthaers's fictional museum project the Musée d'Art Moderne, Département des Aigles from 1968-1972 and Wilson's 1992 installation Mining the Museum at the Maryland Historical Society, this thesis will critically analyze each artist's similar application of deconstruction as a method .. Both artists employ allegory and history as aesthetic strategies of deconstruction; using allegorical structure, the artists mobilize objects that have been arrested in history, disrupting a historical continuum that would otherwise remain foreclosed.The focus of this study will he to explore the critical approaches of Broodthaers and Wilson individually as weIl as the similar theoretical tendencies of the artists jointly; this investigation will assess the effect of institutional criticism on the museum's present condition, unfolding hoth what has changed and what is still at play within this practice. Abstrait:Cette thèse compare deux artistes contemporains qui ont pour pratique la critique institutionnelle muséale, Marcel Broodthaers et Fred Wilson.Prenant spécifiquement comme cas d'études le musée fictionnel de Broodthaers, le Musée d'Art Moderne, Département des Aigles de 1968 à 1972 et l'installation de Wilson en 1992 Mining the Museum à la Société Historique de Maryland, cette thèse analysera l'application de la déconstruction comme méthode adoptée par chaque artiste.Les deux artistes utilisent l'allégorie et l'histoire comme stratégies esthétiques de déconstruction.En employant la structure allégorique, les artistes délocalisent des objets qui étaient jusqu'alors figés dans l 'histoire, interrompant ainsi un continuum historique qui autrement, serait demeuré clos.La préoccupation centrale sera d'explorer les approches critiques de Broodthaers et Wilson individuellement ainsi que les tendances théoriques communes aux deux artistes.Cette investigation évaluera l'effet d'une critique institutionnelle sur la présente condition du musée, dévoilant ce qui a changé et ce qui reste toujours un enjeu au sein de cette pratique.It was a privilege to have the brilliant and articulate Christine Ross as my thesis supervisor.Under her supervision 1 have grown immensely both as a writer and as a scholar.In an academic world that grows increasingly more interdisciplinary, she has continuously challenged me to always look to the artwork and constantly engage the discipline of art history.She has inspired my firm commitment to and interest in art history as a discipline. 1 would also like to extend my appreciation to the faculty and staff of the Department of Art History and Communication Studies for enriching and encouraging my overall academic experience, in particular Bronwen Wilson, Ting Chang, and Angela Vanhaelen.The thesisprocess would not have been endurable without the support of my friends.Thank you for giving my life in Montréal a meaning and a depth beyond this degree.To my friends and colleagues in AHCS, thank you for providing me with an unbelievably supportive academic network.To my coworkers and friends at Thomson House, thank you for providing me with unforgettable friendships and countless memories.And to
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".