No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Cause and Effect in Cross-Media Fertilization: the Impact of Historicity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2009
Abstract
It is the modernist wisdom that each art or medium should be defined in its own terms, so as to delimit it from other arts or media, while also arriving at certain conclusions as to the ‘message’ of the medium in question and its preferred subject-matters. This tradition has often been criticized for an inherent essentialism, and a less prescriptive approach is proposed in the following article – which, while taking the interaction between the different arts and media into account, also attempts to understand this in its historical perspective. The author, Klaus Ulrich Militz, concentrates mainly on the interrelations between the audio-visual performing arts of theatre, cinema, and television, and refers in particular to a number of artistic approaches to theatre which appear to be based on media interplay as a major source of aesthetic innovation. He also includes some crucial statements by theatre artists, suggesting different ways in which they came to locate their aesthetic positions. Klaus Ulrich Militz is a member of the media research group at the University of Edinburgh, and is currently completing his doctoral thesis on the work of Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998
References
Notes and References
1. Benjamin, Walter, Illuminations, ed. Arendt, Hannah (London: Fontana Press, 1992)Google Scholar.
2. McLuhan, Marshall, Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man (London, New York: ARK Paperbacks, 1964), p. 8Google Scholar.
3. Enzensberger, Hans Magnus, ‘Baukasten zu einer Theorie der Medien’, in Palaver: Politische Überlegungen, 1967–1973 (Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1974), p. 126Google Scholar.
4. Willett, John, Brecht on Theatre: the Development of an Aesthetic (London: Methuen, 1978), p. 47Google Scholar.
5. Brecht, Bertolt, Schriften zum Theater, Vol. II, ed. Hecht, Werner (Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1963), p. 218 (my translation)Google Scholar.
6. Hickethier, Knut, ‘Die Fernsehserie: eine Kette von Verhaltenseinheiten’, in Serie: Kunst im Alltag, Beiträge zur Film– und Fernsehwissenschaft, Vol. XLIII (Berlin: Vistas, 1992), p. 12Google Scholar.
7. Döblin, Alfred, Aufsätze zur Literatur (Olten, Freiburg/Br: Walter, 1963), p. 17 (my translation)Google Scholar.
8. Ibid., p. 124 (my translation).
9. Eisenstein, Sergei M., Selected Works, Vol. I: Writings, 1922–34, ed. Taylor, Richard (London; Bloomington: British Film Institute/Indiana University Press, 1988), p. 39Google Scholar ff.
10. Sitney, P. Adams, ‘Introduction’, in The AvantGarde Film: a Reader of Theory and Criticism, ed. Sitney, P. Adams (New York University Press, 1978), p. x–xiGoogle Scholar.
11. Compare Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: a Psychological History of the German Film (Princeton University Press, 1974), p. 183Google Scholar.
12. Genet, Jean, Reflections on the Theatre (London: Faber, 1972), p. 66Google Scholar.
13. Artaud, Antonin, Collected Works, Vol. II (London: Calder and Boyars, 1971), p. 33Google Scholar.
14. Weiss, Peter, Rapporte 2 (Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1982), p. 92 (my translation)Google Scholar.
15. Artaud, Antonin, The Theatre and its Double (London: Calder, 1970), p. 84–5Google Scholar.
16. Brecht, Bertolt, Schriften zum Theater, Vol. III, ed. Hecht, Werner (Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1963), p. 19Google Scholar.