L'école du regard : poésie et peinture chez Saint-Denys Garneau, Roland Giguère et Robert Melançon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the artistic experience of Saint-Denys Garneau, who decided to devote himself to painting and writing at the beginning of the 1930's, to the poetry and essays on art of Claude Gauvreau, Roland Giguere, Jacques Brault or Robert Melancon, Quebec's poetry maintains a fertile dialogue with the art of painting. Whatever form it takes, discourse on art allows the poet to reinforce or refine aesthetic sensibilities, to question the links or the disparities between texts and images, but also to conceive a theory about visual perceptions. Despite all that separates these two expressive modes, literature and painting both produce "visibility": even if some pictures are not figurative or some poems do not contain imagery, visual arts, beyond the topics or themes they provide to writers (landscape, portrait, still life, etc.), contribute to the development of "ways of seeing", ways of perceiving sensitive reality and of inserting oneself as a subject in the world. This is particularly true in the works of the three poets around which the main parts of this study are centered: Saint-Denys Garneau, for whom painting is a way of "learning to see" (apprendre a voir), Roland Giguere, whose poetic and artistic works share a desire to "give to see" (donner a voir), and finally Robert Melancon, who borrows from painters ways to "make see" (faire voir). By using notions and concepts that come from disciplines close to Aesthetics, this work proposes to circumscribe those "ways of seeing" and to assess how painting acts as a "seeing school" (ecole du regard) for these three authors. More broadly, since discourse on painting can be found throughout Quebec's modern poetry, this study also constitutes a point of view on the history of poetry in Quebec since Saint-Denys Garneau.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".