L'art féministe et la traversée de la pornographie : érotisme et intersubjectivité chez Carolee Schneemann, Pipilotti Rist, Annie Sprinkle et Marlene Dumas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing importance of pornography since its commercialization at the end of the seventies modified the artistic landscape of sexual representation. What has occurred is a transformation of the horizon of expectations of pornographic images, the definition of eroticism and the relationship between the two notions. In this perspective, the thesis concentrates on the analysis of the appropriation of certain distinct traits of hard core pornography in feminist art. Specifically, it is a qualitative analysis of the interrelations between eroticism and pornography in feminist art during the 1980s. The thesis proceeds to an in-depth analysis of several works by Pipilotti Rist, Annie Sprinkle, and Marlene Dumas as well as adding three earlier works of sexually explicit representation by Carolee Schneemann. The analysis of these works aims to redefine notions of pornography and eroticism, drawing on the work of Linda Williams for the first definition and Georges Bataille for the second. The theoretical context of the thesis, which also turns out to be the historical context of the works, is made up of disciplinary approaches that have most contributed to the debate around eroticism and pornography: art history, philosophy, feminist studies, queer theory, semiology and psychoanalysis. The thesis makes several conclusions. First, the dynamic between eroticism and pornography does not have to be considered oppositional; the two methods of expression are frequently both represented in the same work. Also, women are no longer uniquely victims of pornography (they are increasingly in the role of pornographic auteure) and the analysis of these works confirms that feminists have appropriated the genre to explore a diversity of female eroticisms and propose a form of feminist, intersubjective pornography. Finally, the use by female artists of syntaxes and features typical of pornography helps to bring about a demand for a more complete and complex female subjectivity which is no longer only political, but also sexual.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".