As well as the ready-made, almost a century ago, turned the question “what is art?” into its opposite (“how can say something isn’t art?”, something wouldn’t be transformed into an art piece since the only artist’s word, fiat ars, was enough to turn any part of the real into art), as well, it has become difficult today, to point what couldn’t be, ever or essentially, a poetic object. In front of Bernard Heidsieck poetic and plastic work, we have to gather a series of criteria that would allow us to distinguish poeticism and “total art”. Nelson Goodman gives us a few answers highlighting the importance of a rarely acknowledged parameter: the context. The essentialist question “what is art?”/”what is a poem?” is turned into a rather pragmatic one “when is there art?/poem?”. From that pragmatist point of view, the idea of “context” allows us to deal with both space (the place where the art work happens) and time (the circumstances when it happens). That means a same object or a same action could or couldn’t be art, which leads us to the question of the context and the intention. For my researches, the context is primordial since Bernard Heidsieck’s poems, which are not exclusively textual, partly inscribe themselves in poetry because of their belonging to the poetry field of diffusion (from the publishing companies to the institutions). In the mean time, these objects don’t become “poems” just because of that poetic context. For those reasons, my project is to try and redefine the term and the field “poetry” and it’s analysis tools, it’s an attempt to build a poetic that would allow us to talk about what I will call the “complex poetic objects” _ complex because they belong to different types of aesthetic regimens _ of Bernard Heidsieck.
