{"word_count": 305, "character_count": 1938}
L'analyse que nous menons, en particulier à propos de la relation Paris-New-York, implique une démarche comparative, entre artistes, entre réseaux artistiques, entre critiques et entre représentations construites et diffusées par les divers acteurs. Réfléchir en termes d'influence peut poser problème  si l'on se place du point de vue de la spécificité du geste créateur. Pour aborder cette question justement et sans naïveté, il faut revenir sur le sens du terme influence. C'est Sophie Berrebi qui nous éclaire sur ce point. En 2006, son article "Paris Circus New York Junk: Jean Dubuffet and Claes Oldenburg, 1959-1962", Art History, vol 21 issue 1, February 2006, pages 79-107 (on le trouve en ligne sur son site) se termine sur la réflexion suivante qui peut nous guider:Discussion of influence may offer a privileged means to re-evaluate trans- atlantic artistic exchanges from the postwar period onwards only if it goes beyond the simplified notion of influence as weight or even as ‘collage’, to quote Thomas Hess, one of the many critics focused on the question of cultural domination in the extended postwar period (1). By contrast, varied forms of influence as creation, antithesis – as proposed in particular by Harold Bloom – and productive anachronism can prove an effective tool in reconsidering the historical narratives that have shaped, at the broad level of cultural politics, the dominant reading of European and American art since 1945(2).The arguments outlined here suggest that influence may be inverted, that influence may exist more as a dialogue between artists than as a one-directional process or as a straight line from past to future. In these senses, influence be- comes inseparable from productive anachronism (Nous soulignons).(1) Thomas B. Hess, ‘Collage as an art historical method’, Art News, 60, November 1961, 71.(2) H. Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Thoery of Poetry, Oxford and New York, 1973.