The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Modalities of Media: A Model for Understanding Intermedial Relations
Abstract
Scholars have been debating the interrelations of the arts for centuries. Now, in the age of electronic and digital media, the focus of the argumentation has somewhat shifted to the intermedial relations between various arts and media. One important move has been to acknowledge fully the materiality of the arts: like other media, they are dependent on mediating substances. For this reason, there is a point in not isolating the arts as something ethereal but rather in seeing them as aesthetically developed forms of media. Still, most of the issues discussed within the interart paradigm are also highly relevant to intermedial studies. One such classical locus of the interart debate concerns the relation between the arts of time (music, literature, film) and the arts of space (the visual arts). In the eighteenth century, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing argued famously in Laocoön that there are, or rather should be, clear differences between poetry and painting, 1 but for the moment there is a tendency rather to deconstruct the dissimilarities of various arts and media. W. J. T. Mitchell is perhaps the most influential contemporary critic of attempts to find clear boundaries between arts and media. Many important distinctions have thus been made, and then successfully erased; much taxonomy has been construed, and then torn down, and this process has led to many valuable insights — Is that not enough? What is the problem? These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Cf., for instance, Jörg Helbig’s recent taxonomy of intra, inter, trans and multimedial relations in J. Helbig (2008) ‘Intermedialität–eine spezifische Form des Medienkontakts oder globaler Oberbegriff? Neue Überlegungen zur Systematik intersemiotischer Beziehungen’ in J. E. Müller (ed.) Media Encounters and Media Theories (Münster: Nodus Publikationen).
- See the very comprehensive overview of the development of the research field intermedial studies in C. Clüver (2007) ‘Intermediality and Interarts Studies’ in J. Arvidson, M. Askander, J. Bruhn and H. Führer (eds) Changing Borders: Contemporary Positions in Intermediality (Lund: Intermedia Studies Press), pp. 19–37.
- J. Veltrusky (1981) ‘Comparative Semiotics of Art’ in W. Steiner (ed.) Image and Code (Ann Arbor: Michigan Studies in the Humanities).
- Cf. J. Frank (1991) ‘Spatial Form in Modern Literature’ [1945] in The Idea ofSpa-tial Form (New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press), pp. 5–66.
- Cf. the much broader notion of remediation in J. D. Bolter and R. Grusin (1999) Remediation: UnderstandingNew Media (Cambridge MA and London: MIT Press).
Cited by
Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication
Forceville, C. J. (2011) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.013 · Cited by 2,771
Distinguishing Mediality: The Problem of Identifying Forms and Features of Digital Comics
Wilde, L. (2015) · Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network · doi:10.31165/nk.2015.84.386 · Cited by 71
“It is well known that early cinema for instance, was understood in terms borrowed from elsewhere, such as ‘recorded theatre’ or ‘visual literature’ (cf. Elleström 2010, 25; Scheid 2005).”
BackgroundModelling in digital humanities: signs in context
Ciula, A., & Eide, Ø. (2016) · Digital Scholarship in the Humanities · doi:10.1093/llc/fqw045 · Cited by 40
A Design-Driven Approach to Language Teacher Education in the Era of Digitalization
Tumelius, R., Kuure, L., & Riekki, M. (2022) · Arctic Encounters · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99104-3_2 · Cited by 8
Fotaris, P. (2026) · Cogent Arts & Humanities · doi:10.1080/23311983.2026.2722084
Metadata
- Authors
- Elleström, L.
- Venue
- Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality
- Publisher
- Palgrave Macmillan UK
- Published
- 2010
- Pages
- 11-48
- OpenAlex
- W1503292535
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 205.11
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Modalities of Media: A Model for Understanding Intermedial Relations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/9780230275201_2
- The paper
- Elleström, L. (2010). The Modalities of Media: A Model for Understanding Intermedial Relations. Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230275201_2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.