Introduction

One of my most memorable experiences happened a few years ago in 2002. At the time I was taking modern art classes and my interest for modern art increased by the day. I had noticed there was an interesting exhibition in the Centraal Museum in Utrecht and I decided to go there. It was a solo exhibition by an artist named Pippilotti Rist. Her work comprises a mix of video installations and moving and static objects. She had access to the whole museum and had been able to use each room or space she liked. She used many of the rooms in the museum which normally house the permanent collection and integrated the collection with her own work which she did, in my opinion, quite successfully.

After spending a pleasant tour I most vividly remember the old chapel in the museum which was the last stop of the exhibition. Rist had made a special installation for this specific space. Part of what is now the museum used to be a (medieval) monastery and at present the old chapel is still in use and functions as an exhibition area. This medium size chapel was now the site for one of Rist's most impressive works. When entering the space the first thing one noticed was the all-penetrating scent of peppermint. A scent which even seemed to affect ones pores. The next thing I noticed was a very distinct sort of light which cast everything in hues of red, blue and green. This light was evoked by the patched cloths Rist had put over the long windows of the chapel. Furthermore there were video projections projected in motion throughout the whole space of the chapel. The videos either showed the artist herself dancing naked in some kind of meadow or they showed objects burning. Because the videos were not static one had to visually follow them in order to see what was shown. Next to the scent, light and videos there was sound which was a mix of singing and high pitched sounds. On top of that there was a section in the room where one could walk through see-through draperies which one could touch.

Being on that spot and perceiving all these sensations simultaneously made me (literally) nauseous. I experienced such a strong sense of confusion caused by the ‘overload’ of percepts that I quickly walked out of the room. Even though the room had such a strong effect on me I felt fascinated by what I had just experienced. Up to then I felt I was a relatively experienced person in perceiving alternative forms of arts. But now this installation, which in effect had a relatively simple set-up, had me completely thrown of my feet. A couple of months later I visited the installation for the second time and knowing what I was up to I had guarded myself for the visit. But it was to no avail, I experienced the installation in exactly the same manner as I did the first time. Again I became nauseous from all the impressions and again I had to flee from the room in order to calm down.

You might think I am a very sensitive girl and am easily affected but the friend I took with me the second time also experienced the room as overwhelming. It got me to thinking why this particular installation affected me so much, because if one came to think of it the elements in the exhibition were all more or less known to me. I was familiar with artistic video projections, I knew the smell of peppermint, I had touched draperies before and those sounds were not that peculiar. This installation made me reflect on our dealings with media in general. How do we perceive things, are we affected by them and in what ways do we interact with media? I use the word media because when I started reading into the matter, and doing some research on the topic I decided to adopt Marshall McLuhan’s notion of the medium. He stated that every extension of man is a medium (Understanding Media, 2003 p 7), meaning that every tool or complex of signs can be seen as a medium. It is a topic which I will extensively delve into in my first chapter. At the time his theory was quite revolutionary but I soon discovered his ideas were in fact very similar to Martin Heidegger’s theory on Dasein. Whereas Heidegger used the word tool (Zeug) in order to explain the supplementary relation between subject /object and the experiental domain[1] which is subsequently opened up in this meeting, McLuhan reinterpreted this relation (quite successfully I might add) with the concept of medium or mediation.

Still deliberating on the experience I had I came to realize I had entered a new experiental realm. A new realm which made me reflect on my general perception of things, about the combination of media and about the effect it had had on me. Why was it that this combination of media had such an effect on me, whereas other similar combinations never had? For in daily life we are bombarded with a multitude of sensorial percepts mediated by many forms of media.

It was around the same time I started studying (mainly) French difference[2] theory and was introduced to a new field of studies: Intermedia or Intermediality. The concept, or as we will later see in this in this thesis, the process of Intermediality is a relatively new and unexplored. Apart from the person who introduced the term in Modern Media Theory; Dick Higgins, so far only a few German (Werner Wolf, Jürgen Müller, Yvonne Spielmann) scholars did some research on the workings of Intermediality[3]. What I miss in their studies though, is analysis of the relation between subject and medium. They generally study Intermediality as something which only happens between different forms of media. In my opinion by just focusing on this part of Intermediality one misses other important aspects of Intermediality. One omits to take into the account the relation between subject and media combinations. Combinations between media generally are caused by human interaction with media and in turn media combinations can have strong influence on the way we perceive our world. In this thesis I will elaborate on these aspects which are also related to difference theory. I am not the first to do this, since Henk Oosterling, a philosopher on modern culture, has developed a (radical) differential theory on Intermediality. I will follow his views to some extend but I will eventually develop my own perspective on the matter.

However, to come back to my experience in the museum I came to realize that the most important element of in my experience of the installation had been the specific combination of particular media. When I started studying the workings of media I quickly realized that the combining of different media happens all the time and in innumerous ways. I also realized that specific relations between, and combinations of, media are responsible for the way we experience our surroundings. I would experience my study room differently if I would have no computer but a typewriter. There would be no internet and I would have to type more carefully for every mistake one makes would be non-erasable. The specific form mediation takes and the specific combinations of media make a big difference in how one perceives ones surroundings. In my opinion these combinations can be roughly divided in two ways.

First of all we have Multimedia; a combination of different media which function next to each other and remain clearly discernable (for example an opera in which there is acting, music and the stage) . The effect of multimedia on the viewer or participant usually is immersive and the combination of the media is fully intelligible, with which I mean there is no ambiguity or confusion on the part of the spectator. The theories of Richard Wagner and Jürgen Müller have been of most influence on the characterization of this concept.

Secondly we have intermedia which comes into being through an integrative combination of different media or the implementation of a new device or medium in an already existing realm. With the integration of different media I mean that the usual frames and structure of the different media are affected and influenced by each other. In my view this integrative combination opens up a new experiental domain to the viewer. The implementation of a new device can also open up a new experiental domain or, as I also like to call it; a ‘new world’. Dick Higgins and again Jürgen Müller have had influence on the way this concept has been characterized as thus far happening solely between existing media.

In the thesis I will show that this form of integrative combination of media can be experienced in two ways: a new integrative combination of media can come into being in a gradual way, allowing people to better incorporate the changes which can arise in exploring a new experiental domain. The second way is when the new experiental domain is introduced to the viewer with a shock. Suddenly you find yourself in an unexpected situation and you are at odds as how to experience this new form of media. A certain reflectiveness comes into being, more so than in the gradual variant of Intermediality. The shock-wise introduction of new combinations of media or new devices often takes place within an artistic realm, because many artists try to create new experiences in the form of sudden impacts just as I described above. This however does not mean that shock-wise experiencing Intermediality can not happen in other domains.

Considering the above I decided to formulate the hypothesis of my thesis accordingly:

In contrast to traditional views on Intermediality, which generally see Intermediality as something which happens between media or as a different form of intertextuality, I pose that Intermediality is the opening up of new experiental domains or worlds as experienced by the subject. I want to stress the relational aspect of the medium with human understanding of their surroundings. In this opening up of new experiental domains I discern two variants. The gradual variant is quite common and often goes unnoticed as they originate out of familiar domains. The shock variant however, sensibilizes people to the hitherto unknown and causes them to reflect on their experience. Even though the unknown has its place within the everyday perception of ones world most subjects do not notice this due to a habitual experience of their world. Everything is pervaded by absence or the unknown and in the ambiguity of Intermediality this becomes more evident than usual. Intermediality in the context of opening up a (experiental) world will ‘force’ the subject to deal with the notion of absence in everyday life.

Intermediality is not just about a new medium between other media, nor does it just have integrative qualities, nor is it just a new way of mediating something or giving a new domain a name. Intermediality in the form of opening up a world has all these elements and a little more, which will enhance and expand the surroundings of the subject.

Since this field of studies is relatively new I will first go into more detail on the concept of medium, which is not as straightforward as it may seem, but will be of vital importance to our understanding of Intermediality. I will also extensively discuss Multimediality for it will show the other side of media combinations and our experience of them. In the third and fourth chapter I will go into respectively the technological (or traditional view on Intermediality) and the more philosophical aspects of Intermediality. Opening up, mediating something or becoming all have a difficult ontological and epistemological status. They float between absence and presence and in my opinion this is the most interesting element of opening up a world. How does one deal with the unknown, the ‘informe’ aspects of intermedia experiences and how do these experiences come about in the first place. The notions of passibility and sensibility (on which I will elaborate in the fourth chapter) will prove to be elucidating in the context of Intermediality opening up worlds. At the end of this thesis we hopefully will know why the work of Pippilotti Rist is intermedial of nature.

1 Medium/Media

“[I]t is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. The content or uses of such media are as diverse as they are ineffectual in shaping the form of human association. Indeed, it is only too typical that the “content” of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium.” (McLuhan 2003, p9)

Before we get into the discussion what Intermediality exactly is or how it can open up new experiental realms we must pay more attention to the concept of media or medium. Eventually Intermediality and Multimediality will be about specific media combinations. Very often, when reading about Intermediality, I find that medium or media is not adequately explained. Somehow it is supposed to be a clear and straightforward concept. The concept of medium or media seems to come naturally to most people and we often use it in everyday language without giving it much thought. If we do, however, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Television, radio, magazines, newspapers and more of these kinds of things. The singular and the plural form are often used interchangeably. “People use media with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as to the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like “the press.””[4] There are, however, more significations to the word, meanings which are just as important and even more so when the workings of media in society are explored.

First, I will give a short explanation of the most relevant significations of the concept medium/media in order to elucidate its functioning with regard to Intermediality later on in the thesis. It is a bit arbitrary to start like this, but it will help us to analyze the concept of medium on a more philosophical as well as a cultural level. Understanding the functioning of medium will also give us insight in the functioning of (scientific) disciplines. I do not mean to equate discipline with medium but there are some parallels and links.

Many studies are based on the functioning of one particular medium. Literary studies for example concentrate on the medium literature or books. Theater Studies deal with the medium theatre and so there are many more disciplinary studies which are based on a specific cultural phenomenon, a singular medium. Many of these studies focus on the content of the media. I would like to use a different approach and that is why an important part of this thesis will be not so much on the content of media but on the effects of (new) media on society. I do this also because in our day and age one can observe an increase of interdisciplinarity, which means an increase in media combinations and new experiental domains.

We have to establish which signification of the word medium is useful for the analysis of Intermedia(lity). A possible conclusion would be that there are elements of every signification in the usage of the word medium with regard to Intermediality. If so, then it is important to clarify as much as possible which signification is used in what situation and to what levels of analysis it can be related.

1.1 Midway

1^st definition of medium:

· Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.[5]

The meaning of the word media as something which is in the middle of two things already poses us with the first problem in the analysis of medium. The middle position always presupposes two (or more) other things in order for it to exist. It can never be a singular concept because it needs at least two other objects, words or concepts in order to fulfill its meaning of medium. So the concept of medium in it self, with the significance of midway, already contains something more than one thing, it is embedded in a context, even before it is used in other contexts. Its meaning and action potential are only developed in relation to other things. There is a differential element to it, for the difference with other things determines the position of the medium.

For a moment, I will jump forward in my analyses of the medium to intermedium because the differential element is also exceedingly present in the current theories of Intermediality. Dick Higgins, who was of much influence in the development of the concept of intermedium, expressly placed the ‘new’, not yet defined media, between the known media and called it ‘intermedia’: “Thus the happening developed as an intermedium, an uncharted land that lies between collage, music and the theatre. It is not governed by rules; each work determines its own medium and form according to its needs.”(Higgins 2005 §12) Higgins wanted to emphasize the ambiguous nature of such new media with regard to the older, established media. It may seem a bit superfluous to call these new kinds of media inter-media but Higgins uses two significations of the concept of media in one new analysis. He first uses medium or media as a system which communicates something in a particular form. It mediates something to other subjects through a semiotic system of signification[6]. Such a mediating system with rules and a structure is recognized and defined as a particular medium, for example the medium of television. There are however many forms of mediating information to others and not all systems are ‘clearly’ defined. The new systems, or new media, need to be recognized and establish a place among others. Higgins found a ‘solution’ by deliberately recognizing and placing these new media between the older media, calling them inter-media, which will last only until other new forms of media occur through which the preexisting inter-media will change into media. The problem with Higgins theory is that he presupposes the place and form of already existing media, between which new media arise as intermedia, as given. He does not ask himself why it is we recognize certain forms of media and do no recognize others. Why is one thing a medium and the other thing is not or not yet? It is also confusing when one thinks of media in a midway form, for then it is already in itself in the middle of something. The concept of intermedia seems to overemphasize this middle position, one could make a literal translation of intermedia as a between of the between. Higgins might not have meant medium to hold a middle position and might have seen the concept as solely something which transfers something, but it is rather obvious that the etymological connotations of the word may cause some confusion.

So to recapitalize, medium in itself signifies midway, thus needing several similar concepts, words or objects. It acquires its identity through the differentiation with these other objects but in everyday use this concept is more often connected to the notion of transferal. Transferal in this light may be seen as the ultimate middle between things and it will bring us to the most common idea of medium/media functioning as a transfer-system: the mass media.

1.2 Media

2^nd definition of medium/media:

1. A means of mass communication, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, or television.

2. Media (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The group of journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession.[7]

Many people will instantly have the association with mass-media when they hear the word media. This usage of the word, however, is not very straightforward either. The most commonly used meanings of the word are related to each other but are quite different. Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and of late computers and the internet are seen as media. The people who produce the content of these media, such as journalists, editors and producers are signified by the same word. Especially the content of these media and the people who produce the contents, the information, is usually studied in media research. The media are reduced to their technical aspects and are mainly seen as a means of transmission, something which transmits or mediates ‘information’ from a ‘producer’ to a ‘receiver’. Straightforward as this transferal and the relation between producer and receiver may seem, there is, however, more than just the content of the medium which is mediated and the direct relation between producer and receiver. It is essential to pay more attention to the structures and forms of the different media and explore how these might influence our perception and our way of thinking. Marshall McLuhan, an important media theorist, was one of the first to focus on the effects of the media themselves instead of focusing on the content. Even though in the following quote he speaks of technology, in his book The Medium is the Message (2003) he equates media and technology:

“The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter the sense ratios or patterns of reception steadily and without any resistance. The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity, just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception.” (McLuhan, 2003 p.19)

Although McLuhan thinks that only artists have an eye for the changes in perception (and maybe he is right) I think that we, as ‘normal people’ should try to come to a better understanding of changes through media-implementations, for it might help us to recognize certain areas of tension in society. I will go into this more extensively later on in the thesis. But for now we should ask ourselves what a medium exactly is. Is it sufficient to define medium as something which mediates or transfers something, for example in the form of mass media, holding a middle position between what is meant by the producer(s) and what eventually is understood by the receiver(s)? I think that by exclusively looking at mass media, information and in-between-ness some other important aspects are overlooked. Let us take a look at other aspects of medium.

1.3 Agency

3^rd definition of medium:

· An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred: The train was the usual medium of transportation in those days.[8]

When we talk about mass media transmitting information from a producer to a receiver, these media function as agencies of the information. Agency, however, can be understood in a broader context. Generally information is not the only thing that can be transmitted or transferred. Electricity, power or light are a few examples of things which need an agency in order to be transmitted. So the concept of medium in the signification of agency comprises many more things than just the mediation of information as seems to be the case with mass media. Throughout history people have depended upon devices, objects and instruments in order to accomplish, convey or transfer something. Increasingly more devices have been developed in order to convey, accomplish and transfer more things at a greater rate and speed. For example Mikko Lehtonen, writing on Intermediality and multimodality, calls this development of, and dependence on media or agencies mediatization:

“Mediatization started in the history of humankind when people no longer used only their own physical resources in communicating with other people, but began to rely also on other, “non-human” objects and powers for this purpose.”(Lehtonen 2001 p 76-77)

Lehtonen later on clarifies the notion of “non-human” (Ibidem, p 77) objects by giving the example of ‘the development of impersonal communications’ like writing. Although mediatization is not solely related to communication this is the aspect Lehtonen mainly focuses on. It refers, as I explained earlier, to many kinds of mediatizations. Let us, just to simplify things a bit, call these transferrals information transferrals, while keeping in mind that information is meant in the broadest possible sense.

Media in the sense of agency carrying something (e.g. information) from one place (person) to another is something we are surrounded by all the time. And usually analysis of these processes tend to focus on what (content again) and how (technical aspects) something is conveyed rather than on what effects these transferrals have on everyday life, on the level of thought, perception and communication.

Marshall McLuhan, one of the ‘founding fathers’ of modern media theory was one of the first to recognize the far-reaching effects of media. He was the one to expand the meaning of the concept of medium. McLuhan considered all instrumental devices we surround ourselves with to be media. He pointed towards the scientific negligence of analyses of the form and action-radius of media. Up till then (almost) all research had been done on the content of particular media. The content was considered the message. He introduced his famous phrase: “The medium is the message” (McLuhan, 2003 p 7), which means that not (only) the specific contents of media have dramatic effects on the changes and developments of society but the media (tools or specific sign-complexes) themselves cause the biggest changes in society. “[T]he message of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs.”(Ibidem, p 8) “[I]t is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” (Ibidem, p 9). “The railway for example did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into our human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure.” (Ibidem, p 8)

McLuhan furthermore states that every content of one medium comprises the content of another medium. He gives the example of thought put into speech and speech put into writing (Ibidem). A music video as seen on MTV for example hosts lyrics, which is a derivative from speech and thought, and a small movie which is a derivative of moving images, images and visual perception. When we realize the implications of these statements it becomes even harder to specify exactly what a medium is, or what it comprises. There are so many different forms which, moreover are all related to each other, that it is hard to think of medium as a singular, pure concept, always behaving in the same way. We should not look at it as something static, something that is at our disposal for simple analysis but we should look at it as a dynamic process, forever changing its structure, pace, action radius and impact.

However every medium appears to be bound by, or by convention constructed of, a certain set of rules, structure and form through which the medium becomes recognizable. One must keep in mind though that these forms have a conventional character and not necessarily stop being subject to change. Furthermore one should realize that these forms and structures (the specific form a mediation or agency takes) have influence on the information or content, as well as on both producers and receivers. Because there are so many ways in which something can be transferred and the amount of things transferred are innumerous it is not always easy to define how this influence manifests itself towards the information, producers and receivers. Mobile telephony for example has enhanced communication, that much is clear, but in what ways does it have effect on the economy, crime, terrorism, national defense, health, and aid to third world countries ton name but a few things. The effects are enormous on a global scale, all because of a simple device, an agency of mediation.

An agency in this case, should be seen as something which forms an integrative and a constitutive part of a signification process one which makes our world meaningful, a process which consists of more than just information transferal. A signification process can also be viewed in the light of a semiotic system. A semiotic system is a system of signs. Semiology or semiotics was originally developed by Ferdinand de Saussure. (Macey 2001 pp. 342/3 & 347) The basic unit in this system is the sign, defined as a psychical entity consisting of a ‘signifier’ (an acoustic image, e.g. the word cat) and a ‘signified’ (a concept, the animal). The sign is said to be arbitrary as there is no logical or necessary relationship between the signifier and signified (there is no reason why a cat is called cat).

Whereas de Saussure mainly focused on spoken and written language, Roland Barthes elaborated upon this theory by saying that all sign-systems are part of semiotics (Ibidem p. 347). So even images, gestures and melodic sounds should be seen as being part of a semiotic system. Can we also define an agency to be part of a semiotic system? Can we speak of medium being part of a semiotic system? Jürgen Müller, another important theorist of Intermediality, is someone who sees the medium as a part of a semiotic system, indeed:

Das Medium ist für und zwischen Menschen ein bedeutungsvolles) Zeichen (oder ein Zeichenkomplex) mit Hilfe geeigneter Transmitter vermittelt, und zwar uber zeitliche und/oder raumliche Distanzen hinweg. Ein Medium wäre demzufolge in intentionale Handlungs-Zusammenhange eingebettet; es ist dialogisch und semiotisch konzipiert und umfasst mehrere Dimensionen, die im Prozess der Semiose zusammenwirken, die jedoch – entsprechend unterschiedlichen Erkentnisinteressen – zu Analysezwecken differenziert werden konnen.(Müller, 1996 p 80-81)

Jürgen Müller recognizes the intentional aspect of the use of signs in semiotic systems and this would appear to be an important element in any form of communication. The only problem, however, is that there are also a lot of unintentional aspects to communication. These unintentional aspects come about in the effects of the medium on society. So, to come back to McLuhan who reinterpreted the concept of medium as an extension of man, one could say that in a semiotic system not only the content but also the agency of that content can be seen as a sign or part of a sign in a semiotic system.

And in semiotic systems not only intentional but also unintentional aspects play a major role. But if we broaden the concept of medium so much how do we recognize it as a medium? How do we handle the fact that medium is not a singular sign but a multitude of signs, a system or a network, in co-existence with other media and having unintentional effects on society? When we see medium as an agency of transferal we expand the capacity of medium. Not only information is carried across but agency is needed for every kind of transferal whether it is power, water or knowledge or cargo. Every action in effect is mediated. These mediations all have meaning for us; significance, and thus we might say that an agency is part of a signification process, a semiotic system. This is a complex system and therefore we should take a closer look at the multiplicity of the medium.

1.4 Remediation and Modality

If it is the true that every media contains the contents of other media, the implications of this idea are mind-boggling. Imagine several family trees in which all the members are not just connected to their ancestors and to every other member of that tree, but to all the members of different trees as well. There is an infinite relational pattern between all the members of different trees. Although the tree metaphor suggests some origin from which all semiotic signification springs this is a position I would like to avoid, because it would presuppose a logo centric or teleological solution. From a philosophical perspective this is a highly problematic option. At the present stage I will not pursue this matter but come back to it in a later chapter. The main thing for now is that we should be aware of the relational network between the media. No medium has a singular origin. Not only are there relations between the media (and not just the artistic ones) but also within media themselves there are elements of many other, and often (defined as) pre-existing, media. This infinite relational, and constantly changing, network between and within media makes it difficult to do all-inclusive research and choices have to be made regarding the scope and depth of the analysis. This relational aspect has to be kept in mind though, because otherwise the scope of any conclusions made will be too narrow.

McLuhan was one of the first to recognize the importance of the relationships between media and many others after him have emphasized the plurality of media. Jürgen Müller is very adamant in his conclusion on the nature of the medium:

“If media (and also “media-texts”) are to be located in changing relationships, if their function also depends on historical changes of these relationships, then we have to conclude that the idea of isolated media-monads or isolated sorts of media has to be abandoned.”(Müller 1997, p297-298)

Mikko Lehtonen conceptualized this interrelatedness with the expression multimodality. With this he means that every form of media consists of several elements. For example a written text has to be written on something, with something and has evolved from the spoken language which in its turn has been made up according to certain cultural conventions. There are several modes to every form of expression, communication or transmittance. Starting at the level of the most fundamental instances of communication:

“If these most fundamental symbolic forms – speech, pictures and writing – are “always already” multimodal, then multimodality inevitably also covers the more complex symbolic forms that are developed after the three. Hence, multimodality characterizes all symbolic forms utilized by humans.” (Lehtonen 2001 p 71)

Lehtonen emphasizes the symbolical and communicational aspect of the mediation but the principle is the same. Media are not singular pure entities, they are plural and dynamic. Later on in his article he mentions the importance of the ‘cross-pollination’ of the different media. There is a constant process of simultaneous influence of the media on each other. Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin in their book Remediation (1999) recognize the same pattern and their analysis of the medium is very similar to the analyses of McLuhan, Lehtonen and Müller. They came up with a new concept for this process:

“We offer a simple definition: a medium is that which remediates. It is that which appropriates the techniques, forms, and social significance of other media and attempts to rival or refashion them in the name of the real. A medium in our culture can never operate in isolation, because it must enter into relationships of respect and rivalry with other media.” (Bolter & Grusin, 1999 p 65)

I am not convinced about the “in-name-of-the-real-part” for what do they mean by that? How do they define ‘real’ and how do they know media acts with this goal ‘in mind’? It makes the medium look like it has autonomy and even though I acknowledge the medium or media to be capable of a lot of things; autonomy is not one of them. The aspect of rivalry, however, mentioned here suggests that these changing relationships are not always developed in a straightforward way. It is a positive point that Bolter and Grusin bring in this element because usually these relationships are considered to just evolve between media without much consideration for any kinds of problems or tension which may arise. The relationships seem to be just there. Another good thing about their concept of remediation is that it emphasizes the aspect of change. There is, however, in my opinion, not enough focus on the multiplicity of a medium. Multimodality is more about multiplicity but not enough about change and ideally I would like to see a combination of these two concepts with regard to the medium. Remediamultimodality, unfortunately, is not a word which can be put to new flashy concept use. So for now I will employ both concepts in parallel and I hope the reader will remember the existence of the other when only one of them is used for practical reasons.

Even though I am moderately enthusiastic about Bolter and Grusin's theory of remediation I am not thrilled about their rather simplistic analysis of McLuhan’s theory of the medium:

“[M]arshall McLuhan remarked that “the ‘content’ of any medium is always another medium. The content of writing is speech, just as the written word is the content of print, and print is the content of telegraph.” (23-24) as his problematic examples suggest, McLuhan was not thinking of a simple repurposing, but perhaps of a more complex kind of borrowing in which one medium is itself incorporated or represented in another medium. Dutch painters incorporated maps, globes, inscriptions, letters, and mirrors in their works.” [My emphasis] (Ibidem p 45)

To my mind this kind of analysis seriously borders on derision in order to make one’s own ideas look more interesting. Anyone who seriously reads McLuhan’s book Understanding Media will know that McLuhan was not talking about a complex (what do they mean by complex?) form of borrowing and certainly not about painters incorporating objects in their painting. McLuhan was talking about structural changes caused by the integration of specific characteristics of one medium into another. This of course is very similar to what Bolter and Grusin come up with themselves and their eagerness to be original may explain this simplistic interpretation of McLuhan’s theory.

Despite this faulty interpretation of McLuhan’s theory the main point is that a medium is something which has (historical) connections with other media, is constructed of many different elements or modes, is constantly changing and is embedded in a context. How is it then that we’re able to distinguish between media if there are so many interconnections? I have touched upon it briefly earlier but this is where the mechanisms of identification are at work.

1.5  Identity

Identity is a fairly complex construct. While we usually have no problems using this construct and apply it with a certain ease, when one starts to really think it through it becomes rather difficult to get a grip on this phenomenon. Traditionally, in western thinking, it was common to think of identity as existing before difference. Let me elaborate upon this notion. People used to think of a certain object to have an identity and all the objects which did not match thus became something different with a different identity. First there is the original and then there is the copy, first reality then fiction. Martin Heidegger however questioned this idea of identity in his text Identität und Differenz (1957). In his first lecture of this book, Der Satz der Identität or the Identity-Principle Heidegger starts analyzing the commonly used identity-principle A=A. This principle expresses the equality of A and A. But is this what the identity principle wants to express? Heidegger thinks this is not the case and explains to us why. The identical, in Latin idem, means das Selbe or the same. When someone says: a plant is a plant, this is a tautology. To be the same one only needs one thing, not two. There is no need for two as with equality. The formula A=A speaks of equality. It does not speak of A being the same. The common formula of the identity-principle hides exactly that which it wishes to bring forward, that is: A is A, meaning every A itself is the same (Heidegger 2001 p. 13). If this is the only way the principle is meant then it is not a very useful formula. Heidegger mentions that this is not the full scope of the formula and goes into the extensions of this formula A is A, meaning A is A the same or with itself every A is the same itself. This means that the traditional identity principle wants to express that which coincides with itself – the identical. This principle poses the unity of identity. The odd thing of course is that we can only express this sameness with two terms. We only seem to be able of thinking identity through a doubling of A (A=A) (Brillenburg-Würth, 2004 p 24). When you say A=A one presupposes a difference between the two A’s to subsequently say that they are the same. Heidegger concluded that the difference is inherent to the identity principle.(Ibidem, p25) Identity is a result of a difference. The identity-principle speaks off the Being of beings. The “present-ness” of being. (Heidegger 2001, p17)

After Heidegger especially Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze worked on difference before identity. They not only based their theories on Heidegger but were also inspired by Ferdinand de Saussure, the linguistic philosopher mentioned earlier in relation to agency and semiotics. He stated that the meaning of signs is always conventional and arbitrary. Signs acquire their meaning within the rules of language and within the cultural codes and conventions which guarantee meaningful communication. De Saussure came up with the notion signifier (the word or concept) and signified (that which is meant by the word or concept) in order to show the workings of a sign. But meaning does not only arise from these aspects. (Macey 2000, p 342-343 & 352-353) Meaning is also formed by the differences with other signs. Bed and bad are very similar in writing but have totally different meanings. The meaning of each arises from the difference with the other. In fact not only the differences within similar words initiate identity but also the difference with every other word.

The reason why I bring up this identity issue is that it plays an important role in the analysis of medium. Since there is difference at the very root of identity and meaning evolves in language, culture and difference with other meanings, the way we identify a medium (or any other concept) is subjected to the same process. Meaning is not constructed through a referential relationship with an object but through differential relations with other signifiers. Identity or meaning is a result of difference. Medium is the effect of the movement of difference between signifiers.

According to Paul Moyaert, Derrida especially wanted to undermine the idea of a preliminary given signified. The signified (according to Derrida) does not precede the signifier but is articulated by a differential network of signifiers. The signified appears in a differential interval between signifiers and is the effect of the difference between signifiers; it is produced by the signifiers. This has the consequence that the signified is never given full life; the signified is an effect and appears as a trace, une trace, in a track of difference, a track without proper origin or definite end. The signified is a track which one can follow endlessly without ever coming to an end. (Moyeart1986, p53) In other words, one would always need other words to describe a certain signified and these words would also need explaining and so on and so forth. For this reason it is not possible for a signified to be the same self with itself. Such a signified is always the result of an interval, a between not of itself. Derrida calls this deferral and difference of the signifier différance (Derrida 1995 (a) p29).

Kiene Brillenburg-Wurth tries to focus on the medium in the process of interval. She poses that if one thinks of medium as midway or middle, or in-between, the medium simultaneously mediates and erases something. If one sees medium as a sign then one automatically is confronted with the logic of substitution or the interval between signifier and signified. If one wants to transfer a thought one has to translate this thought into words, sounds or images (substitutions of the original intention). The translating is an intervention, the mediating of a thought into words, sounds or images is a necessary mediation, without this mediation there would be no communication possible. But this mediation is only possible through the difference with other media or mediations. A Monomedia, as Brillenburg - Würth calls it, can only be thought as a result of the difference with other media.(Brillenburg- Würth 2004, pp 22-36) Just like any other concept etc. one should think of media as a result of difference and not the result of identity as Higgins does. There is a bit more to say on this topic but I will come back to difference in the chapter on Intermediality.

I mentioned it briefly before but in many of the relationships between media and within the medium there is tension as a result of difference. In the case of a conventionally firm established medium or concept this tension is hardly noticeable but in the evolving of new media or a new experiental domain the tension is building up since identification is more difficult. What the importance of tension to a medium is I will explore in the following paragraph.

1.6 Reflexivity/ Reflectivity

So what can we conclude from the above mentioned qualities of a medium? First of all it is not a substance; it is a dynamic process, which alters things by carrying something from one point to another while at the same time it undergoes alteration itself. Secondly there is infinite interrelatedness between media. We cannot see it as a singular, static, pure concept although it seems to take that form sometimes. Media can only be in a context, a context which is forever changing. But what good do all these conclusions do? How can it help us with the analysis of the functioning of media and ultimately the functioning of Intermediality? To get more insight in the matter we need to add another element to the concept of media namely that of reflection. Most of the time we are not aware of the changes we undergo related to the way we think, perceive or express certain things. These changes seem to happen naturally and we can hardly imagine doing things differently. Imagine not having a cell-phone? While older people might still be able to perceive it as a possible world and the oldest people remember a world without any phone at all, ‘us youngsters’ will find it nearly impossible. But how can we become more aware of the changes happening to us and around us? Is this a characteristic of the medium itself or do we have to do something else in order to recognize or sense the changes? Henk Oosterling thinks there is a certain reflective element within the functioning of the medium. He uses the word reflective instead of reflexive in order to emphasize the contemplative interval of reflection whereas reflex suggests a more immediate reaction without any contemplation[9]. He situates this reflectivity in the experience of tension. This tension is evoked by the medium when it mediates something while simultaneously it is changed by its own mediation or in the emergence of new media in relation to the old media. Of course most mediation happens within a certain domain or discourse[10] and follows anticipated patterns. It allows for a sort of immunity to the tension but as soon as there is a diversion from the designated paths we re-experience this tension and a certain reflective-ness comes into being. Because, if there is an anomaly, where or how should we place this occurrence? The experience of this tension calls for a certain reflective sensibility. Sensibility only comes about in, with and through the medium. The medium is an agency but it is also that which changes in the mediation. (Oosterling 1999, p 94) Oosterling calls this experience of tension sensibility. This transferal and changing or substitution is most evident in the opening up of ‘new worlds’, the unfamiliarity of the situation cause people to be more sensitive and reflective. We are generally familiar with most mediations and developed a sort of immunity to its tension. I mean, do you ever reflect on, for example, the use of a microwave? Most tension, however, arises when several media are combined in an unusual way. This can be done in two ways of which we will first discuss Multimediality.

Chapter 2 Multimediality

The combining of different media can be done in several ways. I will first discuss the most common form of combination: Multimediality. I especially want to focus on this form because it is often confused with Intermediality. It is also generally understood in a too simplistic way. One can find the term often in connection with the internet with which is meant that there are several different applications on the website such as music, video-clips and interactive elements. While this is not a completely wrong idea of this concept I think it is useful to analyze it more closely in order to come to a good understanding of what this Multimediality consists of. It will give us insight in the popular use of the word as well as the more theoretical applications in science. A historical introduction of this notion in the form of Gesamtkunstwerk developed by Richard Wagner is a good starting point in defining the key elements of Multimediality. It will also give us insight in how different sorts of media combinations are experienced by the subject.

2.1 Wagner, Schopenhauer and the Total Work of Art

In every work on Multimedia (and even Intermedia) the first person to be mentioned in connection with the theory is Richard Wagner and his Gesamtkunstwerk.

When we talk about media or Intermediality we should not forget that combining media is not something new. Throughout history many combinations of different media have been made. Theatre for example has been combining text, image, sound and movement for centuries. And ekphrasis[11], the combination of a text and an image, has been used on a regular basis in the form of written analyses of paintings or to complement poetry. As we were able to see earlier in our analysis of the medium these specific media usually developed out of other media. What distinguishes them from each other is that they have developed a set of characteristics (in interaction with subjects) by which they can be identified. Whereas in the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century there still seemed to be clear distinctions between different forms of art, with artists operating solely within their own field, towards the end of the nineteenth century focus shifted to a synthesis of the arts. Before this shift in focus there had of course been new developments and formations of new media but these only came about gradually. Some of the developments (e.g the turn to a more individual experience of ones world resulted in romantic literature and in the field of painting to impressionism and eventually expressionism) had some influence on the established arts but because the pace was so gradual the established arts in their specific form held firm ground in the minds of the general public. To them distinctions were clear and the arts served as a form of entertainment. But then the romantic period caused a number of changes and there is a shift in the development of combinatory arts. Through the changes in culture, art becomes more and more connected to the subjective experience. Audiences start to analyze art from a reception-aesthetical perspective. This causes art to become a mediated process between the subject and the world; it becomes more than just a representation of the world, which up to then had been the main incentive in most of the arts. The arts are no longer supposed to just mediate the intention of the artist but they also have to elevate the audience into a sphere of higher ideals. The relation between subject and its surroundings (or objects) changes into a more complex symbiosis. There were several philosophers who wrote on the relation between the subject and the object but Schopenhauer proved to be one of the most influential philosophers in that age. He was the most influential writer on Wagner who actually executed some of his ideas. Not only influenced by Schopenhauer but also by ancient Greek theatre Wagner was one of the first to experiment with combining several media into one production in order to cause a “total effect”(Oosterling 2005, ch. II §7) on the audience. Wagner sought to create a work of art in which the multiple components like dance, music and poetry reinforce each other in such a way that the total becomes more that the sum of the parts. In order to understand what I am talking about we need to pay more attention to the ideas of Schopenhauer.

In his principle work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (1818), Arthur Schopenhauer sees reality as existing on two levels, an idea which closely resembles the ideas of Kant and ultimately Plato[12]. There is the level of the “appearance” or phenomena and the level of the “essence” or noumena. The appearances only show the exterior form of things whereas the essences or noumena are veiled by the appearances. Schopenhauer holds the noumena in higher esteem since it gives the true essence or true reality of this world. This reality is, however, a force or stream of chaos and confusion driven by what Schopenhauer calls the “Will”. As the name already indicates the Will is based on a perpetual experience of lack, of need. In other words, the Will is the cause of suffering and pain. The phenomena are a mere manifestation or objectification (the becoming of an object) of the Will. The way I objectify the world I also objectify myself. Nevertheless the Will is always already part of me and that is why I am initially a suffering subject. The only way to experience the noumena is on a subjective level. This becomes clear from the first sentence of Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung: “The world is my idea.”(Schopenhauer 1997, §1) Through reason – active perception, ordering, and synthesizing of fragmentary bits of experience – I create my own representation or idea of the world; that is, the world exists only as I understand it. Put another way, all perceived phenomena are merely various grades of objectification of the “thing-in-itself.” True freedom or release of the will can only be achieved through a resignation of desire. One must simply stop wanting. (McClatchie 1998, p 28). Schopenhauer saw an important role for music in the achievement of freeing oneself of the will. Unlike all the other arts which are just reflections of the noumena, or in other words which are mere phenomena, music is a direct objectification of the will. Music never expresses the phenomena but only inner being, the an sich of the phenomena, the Will itself. The other arts can only represent the Will indirectly but the Will is always already present in music. There is no relation between the world as phenomena, there is no imitation, it just is. There is no mediation needed through which its idea is transported. Music is nonrepresentational, stands apart from the other arts and is independent of the world of appearances. In short, it belongs to the noumenal realm. On a side note Schopenhauer mentions that although music is very important in experiencing the noumenal world he does think that music should free itself of the rhythmical regularities, which were up till then very common in composing, in order to come to a better experience of the noumenal world. Music which loses its own contours becomes a fragment without beginning or end, for example the music of Steve Reich. One looses sense of time and space and this is the true manifestation of the Will (Brillenburg Würth 2002, p 148)

However the subject is more than just a needing being, it is also a knowing subject. There are not only impulses and a body; there are also the ideas and the mind. When the subject consciously tries to turn away from the Will, when it tries to think it self as a thinking, knowing subject the force of the Will will momentarily undergo a lapse and the subject will experience this lapse as freedom from the Will. This ecstatic feeling, however, will not last long for this momentary relief can only be brought about through hard conscious effort which paradoxically will keep the memory of the will alive. This constant memory gives this experience between liberation from the Will and simultaneously remembering of this Will a sublime quality. This sublime experience takes the shape of an aporia[13]. The subject is mangled between these two forces and it can not discard either one of them since they are interdependent. There is a constant hesitation between on the one hand a sense of liberation but on the other hand never truly experiencing this liberation. Schopenhauer’s ideas about experiencing the beautiful are quite different from experiencing the sublime and he regards it as simple and of lesser importance than the sublime. (Ibidem pp 146-147)

Wagner interprets Schopenhauer’s notion of the sublime with regard to music in his own way. Instead of opposing the beautiful and the sublime Wagner relates the two aesthetic forms. In his theory the beautiful eventually leads to the sublime. This has as a result that Schopenhauer’s paradox of liberation (forgetfulness) and anxiety (the not forgetting and being bound by Will) is eliminated in order to come to a state of, in the words of Brillenburg-Wurth ‘super-forgetfulness’ or oblivion.(Ibidem p 169) In other words: Schopenhauer’s aporia is being sacrificed for univocity. Such a state of forgetful bliss presupposes the evaporation of the forms of time and space. Wagner thinks this is possible by introducing the idea of a frozen cadenza (also conceived by Schopenhauer) which encompasses the possibility of a series of free consonance-shifts which free themselves of the rhythmical regularity and thus free themselves of time. (Ibidem pp 157-158)

For Wagner the aspect of momentary freedom through the experiencing of a true world or the noumena was an objective. He sought to convey his aspirations to the public. He was, however, not solely inspired by Schopenhauer. The Athenian theatre, or at least the nineteenth century notion of the Athenian theatre, also played an important role in his ideas about relating to the Innerlichkeit of the subject. (Oosterling 2005 § 1) Wagner foresaw a renaissance of the ancient Greek theatre. In the Greek drama the different artistic media such as text, song, dance, drama and music still formed, according to Henk Oosterling, an “embryonic whole.” In the Greek community drama still had a literately political function for it mostly was about the ins and outs of the polis, the city-state. This drama and its political function had its origin in the Dionysian ritual which related of the (unbearable and strenuous) relation between the community and the immortal Gods. This relationship was thought to be a more natural and pure relationship between humans and their world than the relationship which evolved after the collapse of the Greek polis. (Ibidem) If the Greeks had produced a pure and noble art (classical tragedy), this was because they lived in a free and self-confident society, one that took delight in nature and the gods. According to Large “[s]ince the days of the Grecian glory, man had produced one despotic regime after another, and the result had been nothing but sham: Imperial Rome’s gladiatorial combat and vulgar comedy; the decadent court culture of the absolutist princes; finally the “civilized” art of modern industrial capitalism. Western man could rediscover the wellsprings of genuine culture only by relearning to be free.”(Large 1984 p 76) The combination of momentary freedom from the Will and Wagner’s notion of the Athenian theater resulted in the total work of art or the Gesamtkunstwerk.

In The Art-Work of the Future, Wagner attacked the hitherto common notions of utility (brought about by the imperatives of the industrial revolution) in favor of what he thought was truly necessary—namely the expression of man’s innate creativity and his harmony with nature. Large notes that Wagner extrapolates “[n]ecessity versus utility: this polarity lay at the heart of Wagner’s worldview and explains both his categorical rejection of nineteenth-century culture and his utopian vision of a “purely human” society based on “inner necessity” rather than external imposition.” (Ibidem) The artwork of the future would be an initial step towards the idea of a culture being itself instead of being forced into what it is not. The result would be perfect freedom, freedom in nature and art could be truly free when no longer ashamed of its connection to life.

Wagner realized, in the light of these ideas, that the potential of the separate media could be enlarged when they were put to different use. In the last decennia of the nineteenth century the urge for renewal and enlightenment was omnipotent and Wagner thought that the combination of the separate media could greatly enhance or transfer the potential of each medium to a larger, almost divine, collaborative plane in order to liberate and enlighten the audience. And he also thought of the transformative aspect of combinatory media to affect both artist and viewer:

“Artistic man can only fully content himself by uniting every branch of art into the common artwork: in every segregation of his artistic faculties he is unfree, not fully that which he has power to be; whereas in the common Artwork he is free, and fully that which he has power to be.

The true endeavor of Art is therefore all-embracing: each unit who is inspired with a true art-instinct develops to the highest his own particular faculties, not for the glory of these special faculties, but for the glory of general Manhood in Art.”(Wagner 2001 p 4)

In the above quote one can understand with what forceful terms Wagner described the importance of the effects of the combination of media. Freedom, all-embracing, the glory of general manhood; in short the full potential of Manhood and man could only be reached in the combination of multiple media, in Gesamtkunst.

Wagner put his theories to use in a large new theater in Bayreuth and composed operas which he preferred to call Drama (Ibidem) in order to underline the affective impact of his new approach and the relation to Athenian theatre. Wagner used several new techniques to address and capture the audience in a different way. Up till then the opera functioned more like a social event. People came to meet each other and talked or walked around during the performance. Wagner wanted the performance to be different from what used to be customary and demanded of the public to maintain silence during it. No applause between acts or for an impressive aria. Besides, Wagner’s music did not really lend it self for applause after aria’s, since his music (often) is one uninterrupted sequence with several leitmotivs. The orchestra moved to the orchestra pit, out of sight for the public, which was quite special for the time; music present without any of the musicians in sight. Décor, entourage and interior of the hall were in line with the performance and music and acts on stage were in tune with each other.[14]

All these facets together altered the way in which the drama was performed by the artist(s) and perceived by the audience. Whether one truly experienced the drama in a more metaphysically elevating way is of course questionable. Fact is that there was a change in perception compared to the traditional way of performance. Wagner tried to let the Drama be more immersive and intelligible. In the following analysis I will show why these two aspects are significant for Multimedia and not for Intermedia and what consequences this has for understanding Intermediality.

While Wagner was one of the firsts to deliberately alter the way in which different media were used on stage it will be interesting to see whether the main objectives of his explorations in art still hold ground for present day multimedia. What has changed and what has not and why is this of importance with regard to Intermedia?

2.2 Multiple media

We just discussed the historical forerunner of multimedia. And now I would like to discuss what the similarities are between Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk and present day forms of multimedia? Does multimedia have influence on intermedia?

One could interpret multimedia rather superficially as media put together doing something together. I however would like to state exactly what I understand under multimedia. I do this because books like Multimedia (2001) by Randall Packer and Ken Jordan use the term too loosely, in my opinion. The subjects in their book range from essays from the futurists, to man-computer symbioses, to responsive environments, to virtual interface environments and to collective intelligence, to name but a few elements. Basically their book is a summing up of interesting technological developments and not a theory on Multimedia. This is deplorable because the set-up of their book is quite interesting and the concept could be used in a more elucidating manner. Packer and Jordan bring many important texts together in order to create an overview of all the major developments in the “evolution” of media. With their collected essays of many illustrious persons in the development of arts and digital media they view the many conceptual, technical and artistic changes in the last hundred and fifty years all under the common denominator of Multimedia. By sticking this concept on so many different developments in the arts without setting forth exactly what is meant, leads to a corruption of the concept which in turn clouds a thorough analysis.

I will again turn to Wagner and discuss more aspects of the Gesamtkunstwerk in relation with theories about Multimediality today in order to show the dis- and similarities.

An important aspect of Wagner’s work is that in the combination and collaboration of the separate media they maintain their own qualities. Structure and specific aspects remain recognizable. Not so much the integration of the different media is the objective here, but the cooperation of the different media is important.

Jürgen Müller, who has written many articles on Intermediality recognizes the importance of cooperation in Multimediality and sets it apart against Intermediality. He makes, like Wagner, a distinction between multimedia and intermedia along the lines of the functioning of media next to each other (Nebeneinander) and with each other (Miteinander). With Nebeneinander he means that the separate media function within a larger production but maintain there own qualities, concepts and structure, whereas in the Miteinander variant the different media function in an integrative way. The media take over each others structure or concepts and are changed in this integrative process. (Müller 1996 p 83)

For Multimediality the Nebeneinander-variant is the only possible option, because it enlarges the immersive qualities of the different media. These immersive qualities were also important for Wagner as we will see further down. Jürgen Müller, in fact, makes explicit what Wagner described before in his article “Outlines of the Artwork of the Future,” The Artwork of the Future (1849):

“It is in him, the immediate executant, that the three sister-arts unite their forces in one collective operation, in which the highest faculty of each one of them attains the power to be and do the very thing which, of her own and inmost essence she longs to do and be.

Hereby: that each, where her own power ends, can be absorbed within the other, whose power commences where hers ends,—she maintains her own purity and freedom, her independence as that which she is.” (Wagner 2001 p 8)

Wagner means with the immediate executant the artist who combines the “three sister-acts” (as dancer, tone-artist and poet) in order to attain the fullest effect of all the art-forms. He states that the powers of each of the art forms is exploited to the fullest but maintain their own purity and freedom. Although the absorbing part is a bit confusing with respect to maintaining purity and freedom I think we can conclude form this quote that the different media are separate from each other and remain recognizable. It is only their effects which are strengthened.

“This purpose (enlightenment through the totalizing Drama, JvdP), however, the separate art-branch will never reach alone, but only all together; and therefore the most universal is at like time the only real, free, the only universally intelligible Art-work.”(Ibidem p 9)

I think we must see this intelligibility in the light of Wagner’s ideas about the relationship of the subject in his natural habitat. It is about the subject and its being at ease with nature and striving for freedom from the Will through the means of the Gesamtkunstwerk – it is an intelligibility which not only is about the rational faculties of man but also about the other senses of man. Every aspect of man is addressed in the Gesamtkunstwerk. When this state is reached then everything will be clear and there will be no more chaos.

2.3 Intelligibility & Utopia

As we saw earlier in a quote by Wagner he found the intelligibility of the art-work very important. The combination of several media into one project is the condition for a real, free, universal and intelligible Art-work:

In proportion as it (branch of art, JvdP) passes over into Drama, as it pulses with the Drama’s light, will each domain of Art grow all-intelligible, completely understood and justified.(Ibidem p 7)

The total work of art had to be intelligible because Wagner had the objective to reform or enlighten society. With the example of Athenian theatre, the stable and pure city-state and Schopenhauer’s ideas about liberating oneself from the forces of the Will, Wagner tried to come to a new and pure synthesis which subsequently would prove itself to be a clear and transparent state of being to the public. Any ambiguity would indicate the presence of the Will and the reformation would not be successful. The problem, however, with these kinds of objectives is that totality and complete understanding show an inclination towards a utopian kind of worldview. Henk Oosterling recognizes the far reaching underlying presuppositions of total reformation and understanding as a political objective. He mentions fascism and communism as examples of regimes which had exactly this kind of idealism imbedded in their programs, and which subjected all art to this common goal. As we all know these kinds of Utopian thoughts did not evolve into new peaceful societies but instead these societies slid into exactly the opposite state, a Distopia.(Oosterling 2005 § 3) While the equation with totalitarian regimes may seem a bit rash Oosterling has a point when emphasizing the ‘darker sides’ of totalizing ideals. Nevertheless these ideas were quite powerful in those days which is not very surprising since the darker side of totalitarian ideas had not manifested themselves yet. The rise of industrialization opened up many new possibilities and with them the realization of a better world became within reach, or at least that is what people thought. One might say that in the arts as well as politics an important notion or drive has been the thought of ever achieving such a blissful state. It has been the Hang zum Gesamtkunstwerk which has been a driving force for the innovations in art and other area’s. Oosterling quotes Harald Szeemann according to whom, Gesamt-experiments of the last 150 years manifest an “inclination towards” [Hang zum] as “the wish for salvation”, implying “fantasies and ideas of intended coherency”.(Oosterling 2003, p 32). This state however can never be reached if one goes with the actual meaning of Utopia. Utopia (Ou-topos) can either be translated as “ideal place” or as “land of nowhere. (Oosterling 2005 (1), p1) There is no conclusive answer.

In the final analysis the Gesamtkunstwerk never was really successful. The subordination of art to other domains destroyed the openness and ability to change, so characteristic for avant-garde art. In retrospect, it is not the result but the “inclination towards” that appeared to have been decisive. (Oosterling 2003, pp 32-33)

Although the idealism behind these Gesamt-experiments may not always have worked it has been followed by many afterwards. Diaghilev and his Ballets Russes assumed an interdisciplinary approach in producing ballet. Famous artists like Picasso and Henri Matisse did the decor and composers like Igor Stravinsky, Maurice Ravel, Claude Debussy, Eric Satie en Sergei Prokofiev wrote music all in order to come to a unification of these art forms.[15] This year in an exhibition in Groningen on Diaghilev’s life and work in Groningen the curators sought to revive the old ideas of the choreographer and chose to let the exhibition coincide with a festival in which his ballets and music were performed again. People from many different disciplines worked together to make this possible and it became a big success.

Others, such as the futurists wrote manifestos in which they exalted the new possibilities in life through combining existent media:

[i]t will be painting, architecture, sculpture, words-in-freedom, music of colours, lines and forms, a jumble of objects and reality thrown together at random. We shall offer new inspirations for the researchers of painters, which will tend to break out of the limits of the frame. We shall set in motion the words-in-freedom that smash the boundaries of literature as they march towards painting, music, noise-art, and throw a marvelous bridge between the world and the real object. (Marinetti 2001, p13)

As one can see here is that even the futurists, although they are not as precise in formulating whether the media will cooperate or integrate, had an ulterior motive in aiming at the real object. At this moment, given the wide array of forms that multimedia currently takes—Internet art, virtual reality installations, graphical on-line chat spaces, and real-time networked performance, and many more to come—it is difficult to say whether these new multimedia forms all have an ulterior motive, a Hang zum salvation. It is very probable that they don’t. They do however continue to function next to each other. Sound, image and text can usually be clearly distinguished from each other. Of course there are cases in which it is difficult to tell but these cases tend to belong or evolve into intermedia. Another element which is still intact from the Wagner’s original ideas about the Gesamtkunstwerk in relation to Multimediality is the immersive element belonging to Multimediality. Although not brought about by an underlying ideal, immersivity nevertheless is important for the concept of Multimediality.

2.4 Immersion

“[t]he demand of the collective (gemeinsam) audience is the demand for the artwork, to whose comprehension it must be distinctly led by everything that meets the eye. Thus the spectator transplants himself upon the stage, by means of all his visual and aural faculties; while the performer becomes an artist only by complete absorption into the public. Everything, that breathes and moves upon the stage, thus breathes and moves alone from eloquent desire to impart, to be seen and heard within those walls which, however circumscribed their space, seem to actor form his scenic standpoint to embrace the whole of humankind; whereas the public, that representative of daily life, forgets the confines of the auditorium, and lives and breathes now only in the artwork which seems to it as Life itself, and on the stage which seems the wide-expanse of the whole World…”(Wagner 2001 p 6)

What Wagner describes here is a typical instance of immersion taking effect. The audience is enraptured by what happens on stage and forgets everything else. It seems as though the stage is the world. The reason Wagner strives for these immersive effects is because in this way he can bring about a temporary illusion of Utopia. Wagner was one of the first to understand the power of immersion and ever since, his techniques to capture the audiences have been applied in theatres, orchestra-houses and movie-theatres. While Wagner may have thought to actually achieve his ideals through immersion, others (e.g film makers) after him realized that immersion worked as a temporarily illusion of another world and used the mechanism as such. Immersion of course was not something new; people experienced it mostly through reading books or watching common theatre. The difference with these kinds of immersion is that they were not put to full potential. Wagner mentioned already the stage being like a world and it is this notion of world we must look into in order to understand the full effects of immersion. Marie-Laure Ryan in her book Narrative as Virtual Reality (2001) wrote extensively on immersion in relation to narrative texts and virtual reality. We will take a look at her ideas in order to understand the importance of immersion for Multimediality. Although she usually relates her theories of immersion to texts we should be able to extrapolate these to Multimediality.

What makes the semantic domain of a text into a world? All texts have a semantic domain, except perhaps for those that consist exclusively of meaningless sounds or graphemes, but not all of them construct a world. A semantic domain is the nonenumerable, fuzzybordered, occasionally chaotic set of meanings that is projected by (or read into) any given sequence of signs. In a textual world these meanings form a cosmos. “How does a world exist as a world?” asks Michael Heim, theorist of virtual reality. “A world is not a collection of fragments, nor even an amalgam of pieces. It is a felt totality of whole.” It is not a collection of things but an active usage that relates things together, that links them… World makes a web-like totality… World is a total environment or surround space. (Ryan 2001, p 91)

So according to Ryan the main element of immersion is feeling the totality of the whole, or a whole world. It is creating an illusion that one is in a different world. How does one make believe that this is the case? Ryan mentions a few processes which are at work when a subject is experiencing immersion. First of all one must realize that any world presented to the reader or viewer never is a complete world just for the mere fact that the viewer is not actually in it. The reader uses this world handed to him “to build this always incomplete image into a more vivid representation through the import of information provided by internalized cognitive models, inferential mechanisms, real-life experience, and cultural knowledge, including knowledge derived from other texts” (Ibidem)

Ryan discusses three main forms of immersion in her book Narrative as Virtual Reality and those are first of all spatial immersion in which the reader develops a sense of place, a sense of being on the scene of the narrated events. Secondly we have temporal immersion in which the experience of a reader caught up in narrative suspense, the burning desire to know what happens next. And thirdly there is emotional immersion which is the phenomenon of developing a personal attachment to the characters, of participating in their human experience. According to Ryan narrative techniques are evaluated in terms of their ability to promote these various types of immersion, and immersivity is shown to be more important to the effect of literary realism than the life-likeness of the fictional world. In contemporary culture, moving pictures are the most immersive of all media. (Ibidem, p 120) Movies give a lot of starting information and it is easy to feel empathy because the characters are so life-like.

The subject enters a certain world through the mediations presented to him; this world is not totally new. The media which are used in this particular instance are familiar and their cooperation as well. One can relax and enjoy the show, without needing to reflect on unfamiliar elements. The media in this combination are strengthening each other; this in contrast to Intermediality as we shall soon see.

Chapter 3 Intermediality

One of the main notions of Multimediality is that it is immersive, absorbing, and completely understandable. There is no confusion, no ambiguity on the part of the spectators. The question we subsequently ask ourselves is why Intermediality (integrative, ‘between media’, ambiguous) is so different, for it has much in common with multimedia. There is a combination of different media and medial effects are created. In order to point out the differences we will take a look at the technical aspects of Intermedia with a focus on identification, ambiguity, immersivity and tension. In the following chapter I will set apart what the main discussion on Intermediality till this point has been, since it allows me to pinpoint the missing elements in this debate. I also do this because this field of research is relatively new and not many people have heard or read about it yet.

3.1 Intermediality compared to Multimediality

Although the topic of Intermediality is relatively new, some research has been done and several theories have been developed. We will take a look at the most important contributors to this debate. I have mentioned some of them before but in this chapter I will take more time to analyze their theories, starting with Dick Higgins who (re)coined the term in 1965 (Samuel Taylor Coleridge actually coined the term trying to describe experiments between images and texts but the word fell into disuse.).

Higgins developed the term in order to pinpoint the area from which many new branches of art arose. He thought that the best work produced in his time seemed to fall between media. He scorned the separation between media to be too mechanic and based on a Renaissance idea. He illustrates this with examples of ‘pure’ media such as painting and sculpture. Higgins mentions the work of Marcel Duchamp and John Heartfield as art which is truly between media:

“[t]he German John Heartfield [whose work is a mixture between collage and photography, JvdP] produced what are probably the greatest graphics of out century, surely the most powerful political art that has been done to date. The ready made [Duchamp, JvdP] or the found object, in a sense an intermedium since it was not intended to conform to the pure medium, usually suggests this, and therefore suggests a location in the field between the general area of art media and those of life media.”(Higgins 2005, § 6 & 7)

Here Higgins explicitly mentions that he sees these new forms of art happening between the older and already existing art. What is noteworthy here however is that Higgins not just talks about the arts but also about “life media”. Although he makes not entirely clear what he means exactly with life media I think we can make some cautious remarks on this topic. In my view Higgins is not just taking the conventional arts into account but also the influences of other cultural or social processes. With his example of the readymade he seems to endorse that not just intentional art practices belong to the realm of art but also those practices which do not belong to this realm eventually take a place within the arts. It is a conceptual change and because of this conceptual change a new artistic or medial realm seems to develop between the other, already existing media. These conceptual changes however are not automatically linked to just the art practices. Higgins implies however that these changes may come from anywhere and it is this I think he means with the influence of life media.

Higgins later on talks about the rise of “the happening” (Ibidem § 12) in which he himself took part. These happenings also may not just develop from conceptual changes within the artistic field but also from interaction with other experiental realms in life. Through Higgins explication of “the happening” we, again, are made aware of the in-between-ness of these new forms of media:

“Thus the happening developed as an intermedium, an uncharted land that lies between collage, music and theater. It is not governed by rules; each work determines its own medium and form according to its needs.”(Ibidem)

Especially Higgins’ stress on the absence of rules is an indication of the fluidity of the use of media. No clear boundaries but ‘decompartmentalization’ of the existing media in order to come to new combinations and new forms of art. Higgins also mentions that this form of making art is “more or less universal throughout the fine arts, since continuity rather than categorization is the hallmark of our new mentality.” (Ibidem § 13)

In a later reflection on the 1965 article Higgins explains his reasons for coining a term like intermedia. His intention was to simply offer an ingress into the works which already existed because without a “classification many of the viewers would be turned off by these kinds of works” (Ibidem § 14). He wanted to give the public a way of viewing these artworks without the intervention of history and historical judgements. The term intermedia was however often confused with “mixed media” (Ibidem § 16). This term, however, is according to Higgins not the same as intermedia. Mixed media was used in order to indicate that the artwork was composed of more than one sort of material. For example in paintings a combination of guache and oil might have been used and in the case of opera the term may have been used in order to indicate that it consisted of music, libretto and mise-en-scene. The point is however that these different materials or processes are clearly distinguishable and always take place within a familiar, conceptually well defined form of media. There is no confusion as how to regard such a particular form of medium. Even though there might be some resemblance to multimedia, with mixe