Question 1: With reference to the texts of Rajewsky and Kattenbelt’s lecture explain to what extent
and in what way we can consider Rajewsky’s specific conception of intermediality as ‘theory’. What
might be the claim of her theory? What are the (kind of) questions this theory produces or evokes?
What are the common beliefs and ideas this theory calls into question?
According to Kattenbelt, theory can be used to define and contextualize the topic. Rajewsky did that
by defining and contextualizing the concept of intermediality. According to her, the heterogeneity of
intermediality lead to many misunderstandings and vagueness. Rajewsky particularly chose to
emphasise intermediality in the fields in which she had already studied in.With this theory, she asks
again a question of what intermediality really isRajewsky aims to redefine what intermediality is and
to provide a more concrete concept for it.
Question 2: With reference to the example of Korper that Rajewsky discusses in her text, try to
explain what she considers the ‘as if’ character of intermedial references.
Korper’s theatrical performance, according to Rajewsky, used different media in such a way that it
broke down the barriers of a medium and evoked many other types of media to contribute. The “as
if” character means the evoking another type of medium using the original medium piece. In the
performance, a painting was ‘created.’ Rajewsky claimed that the painting was not accidental in the
eyes of spectator, instead it was an intention of the performance all throughout. Various links and
images can be created by the “as if” character, thus generating intermediality. All the time specators’
experienced links between mediums were intended by the creators of the performance.
and in what way we can consider Rajewsky’s specific conception of intermediality as ‘theory’. What
might be the claim of her theory? What are the (kind of) questions this theory produces or evokes?
What are the common beliefs and ideas this theory calls into question?
According to Kattenbelt, theory can be used to define and contextualize the topic. Rajewsky did that
by defining and contextualizing the concept of intermediality. According to her, the heterogeneity of
intermediality lead to many misunderstandings and vagueness. Rajewsky particularly chose to
emphasise intermediality in the fields in which she had already studied in.With this theory, she asks
again a question of what intermediality really isRajewsky aims to redefine what intermediality is and
to provide a more concrete concept for it.
Question 2: With reference to the example of Korper that Rajewsky discusses in her text, try to
explain what she considers the ‘as if’ character of intermedial references.
Korper’s theatrical performance, according to Rajewsky, used different media in such a way that it
broke down the barriers of a medium and evoked many other types of media to contribute. The “as
if” character means the evoking another type of medium using the original medium piece. In the
performance, a painting was ‘created.’ Rajewsky claimed that the painting was not accidental in the
eyes of spectator, instead it was an intention of the performance all throughout. Various links and
images can be created by the “as if” character, thus generating intermediality. All the time specators’
experienced links between mediums were intended by the creators of the performance.
