Cultural and Media Theory: Media in Transition

Course description for a seminar I’ll be teaching in the summer semester (April – July 2012):

Cultural and Media Theory: Media in Transition

SE 2: Di 10:00/12:00 Raum: 1502.615, Beginn: 10.04.2012

Veranstalter/in: Denson

AmerA; AAS1.2

With regard to the structural roles and relations of media in virtually every aspect of our lives, ours is an era of significant — perhaps even fundamental — change. Digital media, in particular, have transformed entertainment, social interaction, politics, art, and academia, among other areas of human activity. About that, there is widespread agreement; there is little consensus, though, when it comes to assessing the significance of these changes or determining their exact nature. Does “media convergence” characterize something unique about our culture? What is new about “new media”? To begin answering these questions, we must take a broader look at the history of media and media change. In this course, we will therefore focus not only on contemporary media phenomena, but also on a variety of earlier media transformations and transitions in an effort to better understand our present situation. With a primary emphasis on American (popular) culture, but with an eye towards global changes, we will consider moments of change and transition in a wide range of media, including the book, the cinema, recorded music, and television. Please be aware that this is an intensive theory course; there will be a heavy workload in terms of reading assignments, comprising quite a number of difficult theoretical texts. Please enroll only if you are willing to do the readings and participate actively in theoretical discussions.

Required Reading

Please purchase a copy of the following book prior to the beginning of the course: David Thorburn and Henry Jenkins, eds. Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003. (ISBN: 0262701073). Please read Chapter 1, “Introduction: Toward an Aesthetics of Transition,” and be prepared to discuss it on the first day of class!

Recommended Reading

n/a

Assessment Tasks – will be specified ● Registration – StudIP 1.3.2012 – 31.3.2012 ● Size restriction – 25 ● Prerequisites – Studienleistung(en) of “Intermediate Literature and Culture” ● Studiengänge – FüB.A., M Ed. LG, 3. Fach LG, MA AAS ● Further Information – shane.denson@engsem.~

Independent Study: Digital Media and Humanities Research

Course description for an independent studies course I’ll be teaching in the summer semester (April – July 2012):

Independent Study: Digital Media and Humanities Research

SE 2: nach Vereinbarung

Veranstalter/in: Denson

AAS6

This course is designed to accompany the seminar “Cultural and Media Theory: Media in Transition,” but it is open to all students in the Master of Advanced Anglophone Studies program for fulfillment of the “Independent Studies” module. Students in the course will investigate the impact and relevance of digital media for contemporary humanities research (including studies of literature, popular culture, film and other media). Beyond conducting a theoretical inquiry, however, we will be concerned with learning to use and evaluate the techniques, tools, and methods implemented in the “digital humanities” (DH) and related areas of academic research. Thus, we will experiment with applications for textual analysis, data visualization, digital video editing, social media, and blogs, to name a few, and put them to work in academic projects. Together, students will agree on a forum for the joint presentation of their work and organize a concluding event.

Students interested in participating should start familiarizing themselves with online discussions of “digital humanities” and looking at some of the tools used in various DH projects.

Required Reading

Please refer to the course page on StudIP.

Recommended Reading

n/a Assessment Tasks – will be specified ● Registration – StudIP 1.3.2012 – 31.3.2012 ● Size restriction – 25 ● Prerequisites – none ● Studiengänge – MA AAS ● Further Information – shane.denson@engsem.~

(image by nicomachus, created via www.wordle.net for http://nicomachus.net/2011/01/digital-humanities-blog-carnival-vol-1-issue-1/)

Gaming & Art

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkkJaqBbXV8]

Cory Arcangel, Super Mario Clouds (2002)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAhG0PJBQAA]

Anne-Marie Schleiner, Joan Leandre, Brody Condon, Velvet Strike (2002)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f5O5Yw9gr8]

Brody Condon, Adam Killer (1999-2001)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdAJKRpP5uU]

Cory Arcangel, Super Mario Movie (2005), part 1

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAsb6LMjIrM]

Cory Arcangel, Super Mario Movie (2005), part 2

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C27OiaA_i14]

Cory Arcangel, Naptime (2002)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjg228x71w4]

Cory Arcangel, I Shot Andy Warhol (2002)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs09qMExDa8]

Moose13088 (?), I Shot Cory Arcangel (2009)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baIiP8re1y4]

Cory Arcangel, Beat the Champ (2011)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5UGN7tq1lQ]

Cory Arcangel, Pro Tools: Various Self-Playing Bowling Games (2011)

Posthuman Play, Or: A Different Look at Nonhuman Agency and Gaming

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XAlSp838Y]

In his classic work on “the play element of culture,” Homo Ludens (1938), Johan Huizinga writes:

“Play is older than culture, for culture, however inadequately defined, always presupposes human society, and animals have not waited for man to teach them their playing.”

In the meantime, posthumanists of various stripes, actor-network theorists (or ANTs), speculative realists, and scholars in the fields of critical animal studies, ecocriticism, and media studies, among others, have challenged the notion that culture “always presupposes human society.” In these paradigms, we are asked to see octopuses as tool-users with distinct cultures of material praxis, objects as agents in their own right, and “man’s best friend,” the dog, as a “companion species” in a strong sense: as an active participant in the evolutionary negotiation of human agency. The reality of play in the nonhuman world, which Huizinga affirms, would accordingly be far less surprising for twenty-first century humans than it might have been for Huizings’s early twentieth-century readers.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLclGPr7fj4]

Still, the situation is not completely obvious. Consider Tillman the Skateboarding Dog (see the videos above) or his various “imitators” on Youtube. Can we say, with Huizinga, that Tillman “[has] not waited for man to teach [him his] playing”? Certainly some human taught him to ride his skateboard (and waveboard and surfboard etc.). Furthermore, the imbrication with human culture goes further as Tillman’s riding becomes a spectacle for human onlookers, users of Youtube, and viewers of Apple’s iPhone ads (in which he appeared in 2007):

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qObhmS8zX8M]

And yet it’s not the genesis or the appropriation but the independent reality of Tillman’s play that’s really at stake, i.e. not whether he learned the material techniques of his play from humans or whether humans profit from that play in various ways, but whether Tillman himself is really playing, whether he is an agent of play, when he appears to us to be playing. Is there any reason to deny this? After watching several more clips of Tillman in action, I am inclined to think not. We might raise any number of ethical, political, or other concerns about the treatment of animals like Tillman (who do, after all, have to undergo some sort of training before they can play like this — and training of this sort is work, hardly just fun and games). But, regardless of these questions, these video clips would seem to serve an epistemological (evidentiary) function, as they attest to the factual occurrence of a state of play (and associated affects?) in the nonhuman world. They militate, that is, against the view that pet owners unidirectionally play with their pets (by throwing sticks for dogs to fetch, for example), instead granting to animals an independent play agency and distributing the play between human and nonhuman agencies.

Anyone who has lived with an animal might find all of this quite unsurprising, and yet Tillman’s feats would seem to have a philosophical, metaphysical relevance, as illustrations of a nonhuman agency in a robust sense — or as phenomena that are poorly accounted for (in the terminology of speculative realism) by “correlationist” philosophies that deny the possibility of any but a human perspective on the world.

In the realm of media, a non-correlationist view of play as distributed amongst human and nonhuman agents, enmeshed in ensembles of organic and machinic embodiments, has emerged in game studies, where Ian Bogost and Nick Montfort’s platform studies, Alexander Galloway’s algorithmic aesthetics, as well as various applications of posthumanist inflections of phenomenology and actor-network theory, to name a few, all unsettle the primacy and coherence of the human in the play of agencies that is the video game.

What has been missing up to this point, though, is a consideration of nonhuman animals in relation to games’ technical agencies. This is understandable, of course, as most game controllers are designed for primates with prehensile thumbs, and many house pets seem not to understand the basic conventions of — an admittedly anthropocentric — screen culture (I’m thinking of Vivian Sobchack’s cat in The Address of the Eye).

Leave it to Tillman the Skateboarding Dog, then, to point the way to a new field of inquiry — a thoroughly posthumanist field of game design for gaming animals, or a critical animal game studies (which might be critical of the role of animals in games culture as well as recognizing animals themselves as critical gamers):

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdgO3cEYYTw]

All jokes aside, though, Tillman’s virtual skateboarding raises some interesting questions for game studies by reframing familiar topics of immersion and identification. Surely, we will not want to impute to Tillman an Oedipal conflict, lack, or any of the other structures of the psychoanalytic apparatus that (as a carryover from film studies) is sometimes invoked to explain human involvement in onscreen events, and yet some form of embodied identification is clearly taking place here. What lessons should we draw with regard to our own gameplay practices?

Artificial Life and Uncanny Animation in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

The next meeting of the Film & TV Reading Group will take place at 6:00 pm (s.t.) on January 18, 2012 (in room 609 of the Conti-Hochhaus). Thomas Habedank will be moderating the session, for which he has chosen a very interesting article by Livia Monnet entitled “A-Life and the Uncanny in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within” (from Science Fiction Studies 31.1 (2004), 97-121).

While focusing on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (see imdb for more info), in certain respects the paper’s topic picks up on a facet of our discussion of Romero’s zombie films–the question of the uncanny. The paper links this question to a certain historical moment and the media transition from analog to digital forms, to questions of adaptations between film and videogames, and to broader questions of “animation” as both a specific form of film and a basic impulse of film in general.

No prior familiarity with the Final Fantasy franchise or the film is required in order to participate. We will watch some relevant clips to facilitate discussion, and the topic should be conducive to discussion along the lines of a wide variety of interests in moving-picture media.

As always, new participants are more than welcome to join us. For more information about the Film & TV Reading Group, feel free to contact me by e-mail (see the “Contact” page above for the address).

Bowie Turns 65: Pop-Star Iconicity and the Serialization of Self

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvR08RD_-I]

David Bowie turns 65 today, and among the various birthday tributes and other pieces written for the occasion is this article by David Hudson, appearing in mubi.com’s “The Daily” column: “Bowie @ 65“. Most interesting, to me, is Hudson’s identification of “Bowie’s #1 lesson in staying power: Create a persona and then kill it off with the next one.” Hudson is right, I believe, to single out what amounts to a principle of seriality as the open secret of Bowie’s success — a principle taken up, as Hudson also correctly observes, by Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Prince in the 1980s. As I’ve recently argued, it’s precisely this principle — with Bowie as a direct influence, no less — that Lady Gaga has begun adapting to the changed medial parameters of twenty-first century convergence culture (see here for a summary). I’ll have more to say about this sort of serialized celebrity soon, but for now: Happy birthday to one of the original progenitors of pop stardom qua serial media remix!

Bollywood Nation: Mr. and Mrs. Iyer

On Thursday, January 5, 2012, we will be screening the fourth film in our Bollywood Nation series: Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. As usual, the screening will begin at 6:00 PM (room 615 in the Conti-Hochhaus). As indicated on our poster above, the 2002 film serves in several respects as a contrast to the other films in our series. More information about the film can be found on imdb.com.

Roland Faelske-Preis für Comic und Animationsfilm 2012

[scribd id=76711267 key=key-24ixcjn6dyg23b78qb4p mode=list]

Ausschreibung: Roland Faelske-Preis für Comic und Animationsfilm 2012

Die Universität Hamburg und die Roland Faelske-Stiftung loben im Jahr 2012 zum zweiten Mal den Roland Faelske-Preis für Comic und Animationsfilm aus. Ausgezeihnet werden Studierende und Promovenden für herausragende Arbeiten aus dem Themenbereich ‘Comic’ oder ‘Animationsfilm’.

Der Preis wird in zwei Kategorien verliehen:

Für die beste Magister-, Diplom-, Master- oder Bachelor-Abschlussarbeit, dotiert mit 1.000 Euro
und für die beste Dissertation, dotiert mit 3.000 Euro.

Annahmeschluss für empfohlene Arbeiten ist der 30. Juni 2012.

Die Zulassungsbedingungen entnehmen Sie bitte der ausführlichen Ausschreibung sowie der ‘Richtlinie für die Verleihung des Roland Faelske-Preises’.

Auskünfte erteilt Herr Prof. Dr. Markus Kuhn.
markus.kuhn@uni-hamburg.de

CFP: Comics and Politics

Comics and Politics

7th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Comicforschung (Society for Comics Studies)

at the Institute for Media Culture Studies, University of Freiburg

September 27-29, 2012

comfor2012.comicgesellschaft.de

We invite abstracts for each of the following three parts of the conference: Talks on the main conference topic, Comics and Politics (1); reports on ongoing research projects for any aspect of comics studies for open workshop sessions (2); as well as posters on any topic concerning comics studies (3).

1. Call for Papers on Comics and Politics

Comics interact with politics and the political in several obvious ways: As a format of artistic expression, as a sometimes popular, alternative or marginalized genre, and not least as an element of new media, comics feature specific political dimensions that are not always sufficiently covered by concepts developed for the description of politics in other art forms. While several studies have dealt with particular instances, the special role of comics as archive, player, playing field, and constituent of political processes has rarely been examined under a common perspective.

The 7th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Comicforschung thus invites contributions from different disciplines and starting points that deal with any of the many constellations of comics and politics. Some of these views might, for instance, connect to recent thoughts on an ‘ethical turn’ in cultural studies, or equally to contemporary questions and theories from pictorial studies.

Contributions might address any of the following three broad subjects, among others:

I. Comics Activism: Criticism and Propaganda

Political elements in comics are most conspicuous where they are dealt with topically and explicitly: In depictions, evaluations, negotiations and interventions of political issues. Such comics come in many different forms, from propaganda with a clear political, religious, or cultural agenda, through satirical, subversive, and socially critical work, up to and including alternative media and grey publications. Along with other fictional or documentary comics on contemporary or historical political issues, they also add to an archive of political topics and discourses. Some prominent examples here might connect to Postcolonial or Gender Studies, which have sometimes been somewhat neglected in existing comics studies.

Contributions to this area might, for instance, deal with contexts of publication, habits of reading, dimensions of social effect, as well as topical content and delivery of political concepts in comics. Some objects for research might include cultural treatments of political processes (such as comics ‘about’ the Third Reich, the Cold War, 9/11, etc.); as well as comics that are actively engaged in political debate (such as comics ‘in favour of’ Christian fundamentalism, alternative energy sources, equal rights movements, etc.); but also and not least comics that are foremost conceived and produced as parts of official or alternative political discourses (such as comics ‘in’ politics: the report of the 9/11-commission, military informational and instructional material, etc.).

II. Comics under Control: Censorship and Comic Codes

From a different angle, comics appear as objects of political processes: Where they have been regarded dominantly as children’s and youth literature, they have variously come under the gaze of different concepts of education and socialization, and have been discussed as paradigmatic ‘new media’ – both in apocalyptic warnings of destructive media or as positive vehicles of integration. In other contexts, comics have been described as subversive and alternative forms of communication: Underground Comix and other formats often deliberately play with a performative self-marginalization, employing ostentative obscenity, phantasmagorical depictions of violence, pornography and other echoes of content excluded in controlled media.

Contributions to this area might, for instance, deal with explicit calls for censorship (such as those connected to Wertham’s Seduction of the Inncocent or the Comics Code Authority) through circumstantial pressure on forms and contents (such as modified imagery in recent Barks- and Hergé-publications) up to texts that offer self-reflective commentary on their own limits (perhaps most prominently in Maus’ differentiated self-commentary on the limits and discomforts of its animal allegories). In all of these, political control of media can also be read as a political view of media: In these discourses, comics are first described as harmful, deviant, dangerous, or as productive, useful, educational, in order to justify calls for their restriction or propagation. Can Wertham’s condemnation of comics also count as one of the first detailed, if controversial, analyses of comic books and panel structures?

III. Comics as a Political Art Form: Aesthetics and Ideology

Beyond the explicit treatment of the political in comics, and the explicit treatment of comics in political discourse, many further questions concern the political dimension of specific aesthetics, imageries, and media dispositives in comics. Connecting to models of cultural criticism (from Benjamin and Adorno through to Didi-Huberman, Rancière, or Badiou, or particular theories of pictorial ideology by the likes of Oudart or Heath, and many more), contributions to this area might deal, for instance, with basic constituents of comics and their mimetic conventions, structural effects, processes of narrativization and fictionalization, body imaginations and genre traditions. The very division of the sensual realm into writing and image can no less avoid political relevance than the many issues surrounding a just and justifiable depiction of realities and intentions.

This opens up questions about the formal semantics of the art form, some of which are again dealt with explicitly in comics. Are comics systematically, or are particular comics especially, politically resistant, by the very means of their artistic practice? Or does their connection to mass production and mass media ground them in politically affirmative mainstream cultures? Which concepts might be employed to describe such a basic political dimension of comic book aesthetics?

2. Call for Papers for the Open Workshop

Beyond the discussion of each year’s special topic, the German Society for Comics Studies aims to further co-operation and dialogue in all areas of comics research. The 7th Annual Conference will therefore re-introduce an open workshop format that allows researchers to present and gather feedback on on-going projects within comics studies in all stages of development, and without any thematic restrictions – not limited to comics and politics. The invitation stands for colleagues in all phases of academic careers to discuss any projects on which they are currently working, be it as BA, MA or PhD candidates, established institutional researchers, or free scholars.

3. Call for Papers for the Poster Section

The third part of the conference will, for the first time, present a poster section. Ongoing as well as concluded research projects on all topics – not limited to comics and politics – can be presented on posters. Posters will be on exhibition for the whole time of the conference, and a special poster session will give the authors an opportunity to explain and discuss their work in detail.

We invite short abstracts (1) for 30-minute talks on any topic concerning comics and politics, or (2) for 20-minute presentations in the Open Workshop, or (3) for contributions to the Poster Section.

Please clearly mark your abstract as (1), (2) or (3), and include a short biography and bibliography. Abstracts are welcome by email, as pdf or rtf files. Deadline: February 1, 2012.

For further information, please see comfor2012.comicgesellschaft.de .

Contact:

Dr. Stephan Packard
Juniorprofessor für Medienkulturwissenschaft
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
Werthmannstraße 16 79098 Freiburg
Tel. +49-761-203-97842
stephan.packard@medienkultur.uni-freiburg.de

Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Memes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4

Over at her blog Judgmental Observer, Amanda Ann Klein has a great post up about Internet memes, their workings, and their humor. In addition to the central themes of “cruelty” and “self-loathing” that she sees at work, Klein points to two formal aspects of successful memes: “recognizability” and “repetition.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRXKL3fmlnc

This reminded me of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of media, itself a sort of “remediation” of psychologist Fritz Heider’s distinction of medium vs. thing, which comes down to a distinction between a “loose coupling” and a “tight coupling” of elements of a given sort (see Heider’s Ding und Medium). For Luhmann, mediality consists in the relation between a loosely coupled “medial substrate” and the tightly coupled “forms” that it is capable of assuming — or, in other words, in the “operative deployment of the difference of medial substrate and form”  (Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft 195; my translation), which is itself relative to an observer or system.

(For more on Luhmann’s theory of media, see Chapter 3 (165-214) of Luhmann, Die Kunst der Gesellschaft (translated as Art as a Social System). See also Chapter 2 (190-412) of Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft.)

The connection with Klein’s notions of “recognizability” and “repetition” as formal elements of memification comes when Luhmann, on one occasion, notes that one way to elaborate his distinction of medial substrate and form is “by means of the distinction between redundancy and variety” (Art as a Social System 105). He explains:

The elements that form the medium through their loose coupling—such as letters in a certain kind of writing or words in a text—must be easily recognizable. They carry little information themselves, since the informational content of an artwork must be generated in the course of its formation. The formation of the work creates surprise and assures variety, because there are many ways in which the work can take shape and because, when observed slowly, the work invites the viewer to contemplate alternate possibilities and to experiment with formal variations. (105)

“Variety through repetition” is the formal basis of the Internet meme, as well as being a principle of seriality and a formal description of mediality itself (following Luhmann). As I recently argued for Lady Gaga, Nyan Cat can also be dubbed a “serial media remix”: Nyan Cat is the instantly recognizable, iconically redundant substrate out of which ever new forms are produced; these forms become available, in turn, for sampling, and they serve as the substrate of a higher-order mediality, thus proliferating in a (non-linear) serial explosion.

Long live Nyan Cat: memifier of Internets, proliferator of serial forms, and media remixer extraordinaire! All your substrate are belong to us!!!11!

Works cited:
Heider, Fritz. Ding und Medium. 1926. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2005.
Luhmann, Niklas. Art as a Social System. Trans. Eva M. Knodt. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2000.
_____. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1997.
_____. Die Kunst der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1995.