Max Ernst and the Aesthetic of Commercial Tourism: Max Among Some of His Favorite Dolls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: "Max Ernst and the Aesthetic of Commercial Tourism: Max Among His Favorite Dolls" examines Surrealist artist Max Ernst's practice of collecting Hopi and Zuni kachina figurines. Ernst, like some other European Surrealists, was an avid collector of Native Amercian material culture and ceremonial hardware. Surrealists interest in Indigenous material was part of a larger program to destabilize European privileging of the mind and art as rational constructs. \n\nThis paper focuses on James Thrall Soby's 1941 photograph of Ernst surrounded by his collection of kachina figurine, which was first published in the April edition of View Magazine. As Soby's portrait of Ernst has been reproduced many times over course of the past six decades, it has become an emblem of the Surrealists general interest in Native Americana. \n\nIn contrast to vanguardism with which Ernst and other Surrealist's collecting practices is usually credited, this paper examines Soby portrait of Ernst's within practices of commercial tourism and the souvenir industry in the Southwest. By the mid 1940s, Hopi and Zuni kachina figurine makers had a well-developed commercial kachina figurine industry that targeted the patronage of visitors to the regions. Evidence levied in the development of Ernst's tourist aesthetic includes his mode of collection, display, and stories that surround Max's assemblage of kachina figurines. This paper further differentiates it from the collecting practices of Surrealist counterparts such as André Breton.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".