{"id":171450,"date":"2012-05-01T19:50:00","date_gmt":"2012-05-02T00:50:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/le-retour-des-objets-fetiches-et-quelques-facons-dy-parer\/"},"modified":"2024-02-21T14:40:37","modified_gmt":"2024-02-21T19:40:37","slug":"some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/","title":{"rendered":"Some Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The return to objects in current art practices seems an almost natural outcome of the ebbing wave of relational art. Yet the question remains as to whether objects had really disappeared from the landscape of the 1990s and early 2000s, or had we simply refused to acknowledge them? The last Qu\u00e9bec Triennial proposed that we take a nuanced approach to the issue, by bringing emerging artists who foreground objects and materials (Jacynthe Carrier, Mathieu Latulippe, Julie Favreau) into dialogue with artists like Massimo Guerrera, who have embodied the relational art movement in Qu\u00e9bec, yet for whom objects and know-how are no less present.1<\/sup><\/a> 1 <\/a> - Cf. Johanne Sloan\u2019s article in the Triennial catalogue, which analyzes the work of Val\u00e9rie Blass, BGL, and Michel de Broin: Johanne Sloan, \u201cEveryday Objects, Enigmatic Materials,\u201d The Qu\u00e9bec Triennial 2011: The Work Ahead of Us<\/em>, (Montr\u00e9al: Mus\u00e9e d\u2019art contemporain de Montr\u00e9al, 2011), 325-335.<\/span><\/pre>\n\n\n\n
I would like to consider a few recent works that share many similarities in the way they approach the question of the object, particularly the question of commodity fetishism, which has been the subject of renewed interest in recent years. Commodity fetishism is certainly the most spectacular aspect of the real or assumed return to objects in the past decade, culminating in some million-dollar sales of neo-pop art pieces during the art market boom of 2006-2008. Emblematic works of the period, to recall just a few, include Damien Hirst\u2019s For the Love of God<\/em>, a skull inlaid with thousands of diamonds, which sold for 100 million dollars in 2007; Takashi Murakami\u2019s exhibition at the MOCA in Los Angeles the same year, which presented bags the artist had designed for the Louis Vuitton luxury brand; and Guilty<\/em>, the yacht that Greek-Cypriot collector Dakis Joannou commissioned Jeff Koons to decorate in 2008. The surprising thing about these productions\u200a\u2014\u200aaside from the outrageous sums they fetch\u200a\u2014\u200ais the forthrightness with which they transform themselves into merchandise or luxury goods. They seem in fact to have forgone any critical function, content simply with the power of fascination they hold over collectors.2<\/sup><\/a> 2 <\/a> - I commented on this phenomenon in 2008: see Jean-Philippe Uzel, \u201cTrickster Objects in Contemporary Art,\u201d translated by Ron Ross, in Th\u00e9r\u00e8se Saint-Gelais, ed., The Undecidable: Gaps and Displacements of Contemporary Art<\/em> (Montr\u00e9al: Les \u00e9ditions esse, 2008), 179-190.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Surprisingly, whether directly or indirectly, these works have gained some theoretical legitimacy with authors who, in the wake of the \u201ciconic turn\u201d in visual studies,3<\/sup><\/a> 3 <\/a> - For a very good overview of the subject, see Keith Moxey, \u201cVisual Studies and the Iconic Turn,\u201d Journal of Visual Culture<\/em>, Vol. 7 (2), (Spring 2008), 131-146.<\/span> have recently become interested in the presence of images and objects and their effects on the spectator. Such an author is W.J.T. Mitchell, who, in What Do Pictures Want? <\/em>(2005), radically questions critical approaches to the image and directs his interest towards how images live<\/em>, how they desire<\/em>. At the start of his second chapter, devoted to objects, Mitchell evaluates the work of Jeff Koons and Allan McCollum in light of Marx\u2019s famous passage on the \u201cfetishism of commodities.\u201d We recall that in this text, written after visiting the first World\u2019s Fair in London, in 1851, the author of Das Kapital<\/em> is amazed at the \u201cenigmatic character\u201d of commodities, in which he sees \u201ca very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.\u201d He remarks that an ordinary object of everyday use, like a wooden table, \u201cso soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than \u2018table-turning\u2019 ever was.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a> 4 <\/a> - Karl Marx, \u201cThe Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret thereof,\u201d in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy<\/em>, Vol. I, translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, edited by Frederick Engels [1887] (marxist.org: Marx\/Engles Internet Archive, 1995, 1999), Section 4 of Chapter One, www.marxists.org\/archive\/marx\/works\/1867-c1\/ch01.htm.<\/span> One might say that all of Marx\u2019s work consists in deconstructing this mysterious power of commodities by demonstrating that behind the fetish lies the iron law of capitalism and the logic of exploitation. And one might suppose that Marx engaged in this demystification with all the more conviction for having himself experienced the enchantment of the merchandise at the World\u2019s Fair. Whatever the case may be, his iconoclasm marked the social sciences throughout the twentieth century, right up to the sociological criticism of Pierre Bourdieu, ever wary of fetishes, especially the fetishes of art.5<\/sup><\/a> 5 <\/a> - He thus declared \u201cWarhol\u2019s Brillo boxes and Klein\u2019s monochromes owe their value and their formal properties solely to the structure of the field.\u201d Pierre Bourdieu, \u201cGen\u00e8se historique d\u2019une esth\u00e9tique pure,\u201d Cahiers du Mus\u00e9e national d\u2019art moderne<\/em>, Paris, No. 27 (Spring 1989), 104 (Our translation).<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Zoe Leonard, One Hundred Dollars<\/em>, 2000-2008.
photo : \u00a9 Zoe Leonard, permission de |
courtesy of Galerie Gisela Capitain, Cologne<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Yet Mitchell\u2019s take on the \u201cfetish character of the commodity\u201d in Marx\u2019s work is particular for its rather literal reading, free of iconoclasm. He readily admits to his fascination for objects\u200a\u2014\u200afetishes, totems, idols\u200a\u2014\u200athat lead a life of their own and manage to impose their desires on dazzled spectators. One must understand that this has very little to do with the ideas Bruno Latour has been developing over the last twenty years, by which \u201cquasi-objects\u201d\u200a\u2014\u200a\u201cmixtures\u201d of subjects and things\u200a\u2014\u200ahave continued to proliferate within modernity, which refused to see them.6<\/sup><\/a> 6 <\/a> - Bruno Latour, Sur le culte moderne des dieux faitiches<\/em> (Paris: La D\u00e9couverte, 2009).<\/span> Indeed, with Mitchell it isn\u2019t a matter of a hybrid logic of subject and object, but of a monumental reversal by which objects become subjects and subjects become objects. According to Mitchell, objects, starting with art objects, come to life and imperiously demand that subjects act in a particular way: \u201cTotems, fetishes, and idols are, finally, things that want things, that demand, desire, even require things\u200a\u2014\u200afood, money, blood, respect. It goes without saying that they have \u2018lives of their own\u2019 as animated, vital objects. What do they want from us? [….] Fetishes, as I\u2019ve suggested, characteristically want to be beheld\u200a\u2014\u200ato \u2018be held\u2019 close by, or even reattached to, the body of the fetishist.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a> 7 <\/a> - W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want? <\/em>(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 194.<\/span> But what Mitchell does not say here is that he himself is foremost among fetishists, taking us from Marx\u2019s radical iconoclasm to his own radical fetishism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And yet many current art practices, even if less conspicuous than neo-pop artworks, raise the question of fetishism in less Manichean terms, in part because they make the fetish coexist with its critique. Such is particularly the case with works that use precious materials (gold, silver, diamonds) or bank notes, precisely because these \u201cobjects\u201d are animated by a commercial value that never completely dissipates in their artistic value. They are literally animated<\/em> by a soul (anima<\/em> in Latin) that resists all subversions and even their own destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Cooke-Sasseville, Le petit g\u00e2teau d\u2019or<\/em>, 2010.
photo : \u00c9tienne Boucher, permission de |
courtesy of the artists & Art M\u00fbr, Montr\u00e9al<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
The first example I would like to discuss is Le petit g\u00e2teau d\u2019or<\/em> (2010), an installation by Qu\u00e9bec duo Cooke-Sasseville that was presented in the exhibition of the same name at Art M\u00fbr gallery in Montr\u00e9al in the spring of 2010. At the heart of the exhibition was a little cupcake made of precious materials, for which the artists themselves provided the recipe: \u201cTo make a little golden cupcake you need: 117g of 18-carat gold, 104g of 925 silver, 13 diamonds, 4 emeralds, 3 rhodolite garnets, 3 rubies, 4 topazes, 3 amethysts, 4 sapphires.\u201d8<\/sup><\/a> 8 <\/a> - www.cooke-sasseville.net\/lepetitgateau.htm<\/span> The work obviously alluded, at much reduced scale, to Damien Hirst\u2019s For the Love of God<\/em>, presented at London\u2019s White Cube in 2007. However, there is a significant difference between the fetishes of Hirst and Cooke-Sasseville: the inaccessible nature of Hirst\u2019s fetish object was spectacularly manifest in the exhibition context (dramatic lighting, drastic security measures, etc.), whereas the latter work mocked the former, without eclipsing its power by any means. Indeed, on entering the \u201cPetit g\u00e2teau d\u2019or\u201d exhibition, visitors first had to cross a room where ten or so lithographs were on display (Valeur refuge<\/em>\u200a\u2014\u200asafe investment\u200a\u2014\u200a2010), representing gold ingots in various nibbled states. Directing visitors from one room to the other was a red carpet that suggested a natural transition between the repast of gold and the presence of the little cake.9<\/sup><\/a> 9 <\/a> - Cf. Marie-\u00c8ve Charron\u2019s analysis comparing Le petit g\u00e2teau<\/em> with Piero Manzoni\u2019s Merde d\u2019artiste<\/em> (1961): Marie-\u00c8ve Charron, \u201cCooke-Sasseville\u2019s Golden Recipe,\u201d translated by Eduardo Ralickas, esse<\/em>, no. 69 (Bling-bling<\/em>) (Spring-Summer 2010), 32-36.<\/span> Commodity fetishism is here defused by its psychological equivalent: unwarranted lust for money\u200a\u2014\u200aor any precious object\u200a\u2014\u200awhich in Freud\u2019s terms is synonymous with libidinal regression to an anal phase. By showing that a fetish is nothing without the context that enables its existence, Le petit g\u00e2teau<\/em> recalled Marcel Broodthaers\u2019 Lingot d\u2019or<\/em> (1970-1971), an ingot sold for twice the value of its weight in gold thanks to the transubstantiating effects of the museum, here the \u201cSection financi\u00e8re\u201d of the Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Art Moderne, D\u00e9partement des Aigles<\/em>, the museum founded by the Belgian artist in 1968.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Other contemporary works demonstrate the fetishistic power of commercial objects by working directly with bank notes, for money, as Marx so keenly observed, is the absolute object of bourgeois society: \u201cBy possessing the property<\/em> of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money<\/em> is thus the object<\/em> of eminent possession.\u201d10<\/sup><\/a> 10 <\/a> - Karl Marx, Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844<\/em>, translated by Martin Mulligan (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), \u201cThe Power of Money,\u201d in the Third Manuscript<\/em>, consulted online at www.marxists.org\/archive\/marx\/works\/1844\/manuscripts\/power.htm.<\/span> Such is the case, for instance, with American artist Zoe Leonard\u2019s One Hundred Dollars<\/em> (2000-2008), which consists of a hundred American one dollar bills pinned side by side in ten columns and ten rows to form a rectangle. Visually, the work instantly conjures up Andy Warhol\u2019s 1962 One Dollar Bills<\/em> series, yet here it isn\u2019t a matter of turning money into an icon of consumer society, but of putting its exchange value on hold to give free rein to its use value. Each of the hundred bills bears an anonymous inscription (a name, phone number, shopping list, website, political message, prayer, warning, joke) or a drawing, scrawl, coffee cup stain, piece of adhesive tape, reminding us that a bank note is also a material object that preserves traces of the many uses it is subjected to every day. The work isn\u2019t meant to denounce or praise the fetishist power of money, in which Marx saw \u201cthe confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities,\u201d11<\/sup><\/a> 11 <\/a> - Ibid.<\/span> but to show that beyond this, money also possesses a use value that gives it a human dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Cildo Meireles, Inser\u00e7\u00f5es em Circuitos Ideol\u00f3gicos: Projeto C\u00e9dula [Insertions into Ideological Circuits: Banknotes Project]<\/i>, 1970.<\/p>
photo : \u00a9 Cildo Meireles, permission de | courtesy of Galerie Lelong, New York<\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\"\"
Mathieu Beaus\u00e9jour, Filth<\/em>, 2007.
photo : permission de l\u2019artiste |
courtesy of the artist<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
The bank note alterations are not always anonymous; they may also be the outcome of the artist\u2019s intervention, as in the case of Qu\u00e9bec artist Mathieu Beaus\u00e9jour\u2019s Survival Virus de Survie<\/em> (1991-1999), in which the artist used an ink stamp to obliterate more than 100,000 dollar bills, meticulously taking down their serial numbers as he went along. Critical response emphasized the project\u2019s subversive dimension, its borderline legality. But one can\u2019t help notice the fact that Beaus\u00e9jour\u2019s approach is more than just critical; whereas Brazilian artist Cildo Meireles, in Inser\u00e7\u00f5es em Circuitos Ideol\u00f3gicos<\/em> (1970), printed such phrases as \u201cYankees go home\u201d on bank notes that he then recirculated, Survival Virus de Survie<\/em> does not merely use the bank notes as a medium for disseminating a political message: it also reveals the quasi magical<\/em> quality of money, the supernatural power by which a mere piece of paper can transform the world and throw human relationships into turmoil. This fetishistic aspect of money is not revoked in Beaus\u00e9jour\u2019s work, but exposed by its negative. Economist Ianick Marcil observed as much in his commentary on Beaus\u00e9jour\u2019s Filth<\/em> (2007), in which the artist exhibited thousands of shredded bills in an abandoned bank vault: \u201cAs if […] contemplating the thousands of shredded dollars, now valueless in the commercial system, one sought its vanished soul through its negative.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a> 12 <\/a> - Ianick Marcil, \u201cFutilit\u00e9, art et argent,\u201d Mathieu Beaus\u00e9jour. Persistance<\/em>, exhibition catalogue (Montr\u00e9al: Quartier \u00e9ph\u00e9m\u00e8re, 2007), 117.<\/span> Where Leonard set aside the exchange value of money in order to show its use value, Beaus\u00e9jour reveals money\u2019s soul through its very destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These works by Cooke-Sasseville, Leonard, and Beaus\u00e9jour highlight the way objects operate in current artistic practice. They are not merely striving to give life to objects, as Mitchell suggests, but are also attempting to animate<\/em> them\u200a\u2014\u200ato give them a soul\u200a\u2014\u200aand to deconstruct their power of fascination. To make the tables dance on their heads and, at the same time, reveal the man directing from the shadows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[Translated from the French by Ron Ross]<\/p>\n
Jean-Philippe Uzel, Mathieu Beaus\u00e9jour, Zoe Leonard<\/div>
Jean-Philippe Uzel, Mathieu Beaus\u00e9jour, Zoe Leonard<\/div>
Jean-Philippe Uzel, Mathieu Beaus\u00e9jour, Zoe Leonard<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1303,"featured_media":171364,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[281,882],"tags":[],"numeros":[3550],"disciplines":[],"statuts":[335],"checklist":[],"auteurs":[986],"artistes":[3374,2244],"type_post":[319],"yoast_head":"\nSome Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism – Esse<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Some Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Esse\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/fr-ca.facebook.com\/revue.esse\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-05-02T00:50:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-02-21T19:40:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/75_DO02_Uzel_Broodthaers_Lingot-dor-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1967\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Julia Boileau\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@revue_esse\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@revue_esse\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Julia Boileau\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Some Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism – Esse","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Some Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism","og_url":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/","og_site_name":"Esse","article_publisher":"https:\/\/fr-ca.facebook.com\/revue.esse","article_published_time":"2012-05-02T00:50:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-02-21T19:40:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1967,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/75_DO02_Uzel_Broodthaers_Lingot-dor-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Julia Boileau","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@revue_esse","twitter_site":"@revue_esse","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Julia Boileau","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/"},"author":{"name":"Julia Boileau","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#\/schema\/person\/7d58c17afbd92b24153e52120f7d9d1a"},"headline":"Some Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism","datePublished":"2012-05-02T00:50:00+00:00","dateModified":"2024-02-21T19:40:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/"},"wordCount":2192,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/75_DO02_Uzel_Broodthaers_Lingot-dor-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Archives","Features"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/","url":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/","name":"Some Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism – Esse","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/75_DO02_Uzel_Broodthaers_Lingot-dor-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2012-05-02T00:50:00+00:00","dateModified":"2024-02-21T19:40:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/75_DO02_Uzel_Broodthaers_Lingot-dor-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/75_DO02_Uzel_Broodthaers_Lingot-dor-scaled.jpg","width":1967,"height":2560,"caption":"Marcel Broodthaers, Lingot d\u2019or, Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Art Moderne, Section Financi\u00e8re, D\u00e9partement des Aigles, 1970-1971. \u00a9 Estate of Marcel Broodthaers \/ SODRAC (2012) photo\u00a0: permission de\u00a0|\u00a0courtesy of The Estate of Marcel Broodthaers, Bruxelles & Galerie Chantal Crousel, Paris"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/some-responses-to-the-return-to-object-fetishism\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Some Responses to the Return to Object Fetishism"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#website","url":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/","name":"Esse","description":"Read Art","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#organization","name":"Les \u00e9ditions Esse","url":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/logo-esse.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/logo-esse.jpg","width":316,"height":89,"caption":"Les \u00e9ditions Esse"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/fr-ca.facebook.com\/revue.esse","https:\/\/twitter.com\/revue_esse","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/revueesse\/","https:\/\/ca.linkedin.com\/company\/esse-arts-opinions","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCa9jXCKqjDjvnGahVnBKQNA","https:\/\/fr.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Esse_arts_+_opinions"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/#\/schema\/person\/7d58c17afbd92b24153e52120f7d9d1a","name":"Julia Boileau"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171450"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1303"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171450"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171450\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247228,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171450\/revisions\/247228"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/171364"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"numeros","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/numeros?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"statuts","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/statuts?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"checklist","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/checklist?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"auteurs","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/auteurs?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"artistes","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/artistes?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"type_post","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esse.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/type_post?post=171450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}