Call for papers: Facets and Angles of Intermediality
Call for papers
Facets and Angles of Intermediality: Intersemiotic Terminology and Discourse
There is unanimous agreement that media have had a transforming effect on social spheres in the last decades. In Cultura das mídias(Media Culture), whose first edition came out in 1992, Lucia Santaella pointed out how mainly instances of production and consumption reinvent themselves with new media. As the author herself emphasized, the use of the term media to refer to culture was new back then. In 2006, in Convergence culture, Jenkins, based on a perspective of the economy of culture and entertainment, suggested we think of these changes by looking at the convergence of media, at the time concentrating on the internet and, thus, signaling to the contribution of consumers. Though Jenkins uses the verb “to collide” when referring to the relations/actions between the “old” and “new” media, Santaella’s similar reasoning manifests itself here: media do not exclude each other; they interact in different ways.
The perspective of this interaction between media precedes the discussion that focuses on “the new media” or “digital media” and perhaps it is not necessary to explain the reason since it is more than commonplace to call attention to the different forms through which Biblical narratives are told to the ways cinema materializes at the beginning of the 20th century by adapting literature. Nevertheless, it is not misguided to state that the debates intensified with “media culture” as the speed and volume of cultural production potentially grew, along with the new technologies and their techniques that combine media, agents and forms. Thus, in the 1990s the concept of “intermediality” is used to challenge old notions that are still used today to understand the relations between media, the very notion of media, the perspective of art as an object of analysis, as well as interdisciplinarity and intertextuality.
Claus Clüver, in one of his most comprehensive texts for the study of intermedial phenomenon, published in 1997, underlined the interdisciplinary perspective of “inter-art studies” based on then little known concepts, whether through Literary Theory, Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies — such as intersemiotic translation and ekphrasis — or even the syncretic aspect of interartistic forms. Though Clüver described the phenomena of intermedial relations from the perspective of Inter-arts Studies, as the title of his paper indicates, he demonstrates how researchers have already brought up these interactions based on forms and texts that subvert the idea of the Arts as a conceptual criterion for the analysis of the phenomenon. Clüver’s two papers, “Inter textus / inter artes / inter media” and “Intermediality and interart studies”, published respectively in 2001 and 2008, update the focus of this analysis by eliciting the intermedial character of these relations and pointing to a north for what was then called Studies in Intermediality.
This very short and simple diachronic synthesis allows us now to state another commonplace: the mediatic culture today, the characteristic convergence of the always — or never — new media, the transdisciplinarity that the analysis of these phenomena demands, all point to the “Babel” that academic discussion on intermedial relations has become. While the difference — be it conceptual or methodological — among the multiple and varied fields and areas that observe intermedial phenomena is positive — as it is for the sciences in general — the focus of its discourse has become problematic, since, often, it adds to the noise in communication and, more than that, it ceases to cooperate and collaborate in understanding what is communicated, which is the basic and paramount reason for observing the relations between media.
By highlighting these issues, this dossier propels conceptual and methodological propositions, as well as the analysis of the phenomenon that derive from these, contributing to an interdisciplinary discourse for Studies in Intermediality. Therefore, this proposal intends to find the means for a dialogue that, attuned with the intersemiosis that is the focus of our study, can be understood and debated by researchers whose interests contemplate different semiotic systems.
Main topics accepted in this issue
- Theories, objects and practices in Intermedial Studies
- The meaning of media, mediality, mode and modality
- Categorizations and descriptions of intermedial phenomenon
- The different prefixes used in academic discourses on media: inter, intra, multi, mix, trans
- Methodologies for the analysis of intermedial phenomena