Toute une théorie classique de l’art a défini la composition picturale en prenant ses concepts à la tradition rhétorique. Ainsi le travail du peintre rassemble-t-il à ses yeux, pour commencer, deux opérations dont Cicéron avait déjà en son temps donné les noms pour l'art du discours : l’invention, qui sélectionne au sein d’une sorte de réserve les éléments convenant au sujet à présenter, puis la disposition, qui se charge d’organiser avantageusement ces éléments selon les règles d’une économie. Sous le nom de «montage», une large part de la fabrique artistique contemporaine, qu’il s’agisse de photographie, de cinéma ou de littérature, reconduit de fait aujourd’hui ces principes de procédure. Ils ne sont pourtant pas indépassables. Penser le montage sans s’expliquer avec la notion classique de composition, c’est finalement oublier ce qui a, un temps, animé l’art qu’on peut dire «moderne». Prenant en compte cette situation, étudiant des œuvres qui se sont effectuées en dépit de la méthode défendue par les classiques, cette thèse entend critiquer le désir de maîtriser des objets sous l’autorité d’une idée à transmettre et soutient la notion d’un montage qui, se soustrayant à l’«édifice» (Ishaghpour) ou au «texte» (Rancière), ne se trouve pas par eux modéré dans son opération. Il est en conséquence possible d’entendre les concepts d’invention et de disposition autrement que les classiques ou, en d’autres termes, d’en changer le mode. Cela se fait par glissements notionnels successifs, parmi lesquels celui de l’apparence à l’aspect, de la maîtrise à l’exercice, de l’application à la découverte, etc. On repère ainsi des enjeux de pensée et de conduite qui dépassent finalement le seul motif du montage. / An entire classical theory of art has defined pictorial composition by taking its concepts from the rhetorical tradition. Thus the work of the painter brings together, to his eyes, two activities that Cicero, in his time, had already given the names for the art of discussion: invention, which selects from a kind of inventory the appropriate elements for the subject to present, and then the disposition, which is responsible for the favorable organization of these elements according to the rules of an economy. Today, under the name "montage", a large part of the contemporary artistic fabric, whether it be photography, cinema or literature, follows these procedural principles. They are not, however, unsurpassable. To think of montage without taking into consideration the classical notion of composition is, finally, to forget what at one time animated the art that we can call modern. Taking into account this situation and studying works of art that have been done in spite of the methods defended by the classics, this thesis intends to critique the desire to master objects under the authority of an idea to transmit and support the notion of a montage that, subtracting from the "edifice" (Ishaghpour), or from the "text" (Rancière), does not find itself moderated by them in its operation. It is consequently possible to understand the concepts of invention and disposition using methods other than those of the classics or, in other words, to change the way we understand them. This is done by successive shifts of notions, including from the appearance to the aspect, from the mastery to the practice or from the application to the discovery, and so forth. We thus encounter what is at stake in the thought and conduct, which finally goes beyond the only motive of montage.

x, 237 p. / We have too frequently approached American World War II poetry with assumptions about modern poetry based on readings of the influential British Great War poets, failing to distinguish between WWI and WWII and between the British and American contexts. During the Second World War, the Holocaust and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki obliterated the line many WWI poems reinforced between the soldier's battlefront and the civilian's homefront, authorizing for the first time both civilian and soldier perspectives. Conditions on the American homefront--widespread isolationist and anti-Semitic attitudes, America's late entry into the war, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese internment, and the African American "Double V Campaign" to fight fascism overseas and racism at home--were just some of the volatile conditions poets in the US grappled with during WWII. In their poems, war shapes and threatens the identities of civilians and soldiers, women and men, African Americans and Jews, and verse form itself becomes a weapon against war's assault on identity. Charles Reznikoff, Muriel Rukeyser, Gwendolyn Brooks, and Richard Wilbur mobilize and challenge the authority of traditional poetic forms to defend the self against social, political, and physical assaults. The objective, free-verse testimony form of Reznikoff's long poem Holocaust (1975) registers his mistrust of lyric subjectivity and of the musical effects of traditional poetry. In Rukeyser's free-verse and traditional-verse forms, personal experiences and public history collide to create a unifying poetry during wartime. Brooks, like Rukeyser, posits poetry's ability to protect soldiers and civilians from war's threat to their identities. In Brooks's poems, however, only traditionally formal poems can withstand the war's destruction. Wilbur also employs conventional forms to control war's disorder. The individual speakers in his poems avoid becoming nameless war casualties by grounding themselves in military and literary history. Through a series of historically informed close readings, this dissertation illuminates a neglected period in the history of American poetry and argues that mid-century formalism challenges--not retreats from--twentieth-century atrocities. / Committee in charge: Karen Jackson Ford, Chairperson; John Gage, Member; Paul Peppis, Member; Cecilia Enjuto Rangel, Outside Member