{"id":165,"date":"2016-08-24T23:02:39","date_gmt":"2016-08-24T21:02:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journalliteratur.blogs.ruhr-uni-bochum.de\/?page_id=165"},"modified":"2017-05-05T13:04:30","modified_gmt":"2017-05-05T11:04:30","slug":"journalbuch","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journalliteratur.blogs.ruhr-uni-bochum.de\/gb\/journalbuch\/","title":{"rendered":"Journal\/Book"},"content":{"rendered":"

So, why is it that literary studies and art history do not value the publication of journal literature texts, graphic reproduction and photography, advertisements, or books that are either sequentialised as serial works or form part of a series? Their orientation towards the public and their use of media \u2013 with the associated connotations of mass reception \u2013 are more than just aesthetically disagreeable attendant factors. Journal literature reception cultures<\/em> in relation to book literature reception cultures<\/em> are a significant factor in the specific mediality of the respective media format. And, vice versa, they are themselves composed of media. For a long time, research has acknowledged the plurality of reception cultures and correlated it with the difference between distinct literatures and their corresponding media (formats). Indeed, in the course of this differentiation (and alternating between more or less explicit (de-)valuation and sociological \u2018rescue\u2019), almost homogenously conceived binary oppositional means of communication have emerged: on the one hand \u2013 with very little internal differentiation \u2013 a popular, anonymous mass culture, and on the other an exclusive high culture which refers to individual author names and work titles and defines itself via the concept of art and literature as autonomous creations. In terms of differences in media format, journal reading and \u2018book literature\u2019 reading are opposites within this binary logic: the former is conceptualised as convivial, extensive, superficial, and institutionally assigned to spaces of collective reception (real as well as imaginary), and the latter is coded as solitary, private, intense, aesthetically motivated and academic.<\/p>\n

By contrast, the key difference \u201cjournal \/ book\u201d aims to go beyond theoretically modelled comprehensive concepts and take the concrete use of media as its starting point. In so doing, however, the intention is not to write the history of institutions or technology (various research projects already exist in this area) but to infer the use of media \u2018itself\u2019 in its \u2013 in principle, of course, inaccessible \u2013 presence, based on the specific materiality and the media-based self-reflection of the media formats in question. The research group\u2019s focus is therefore on the materially implied use of media, which can be deduced from forms of institutional enactment, from reading practices evoked by reconstructing the history of technology and media, or from the reflexivity of the respective media \u2018appearance\u2019. Such an \u201carcheology of reading practices\u201d \u00e0 la Roger Chartiers can, in each case, only be developed in an exemplary praxeology concretised through material philology.<\/p>\n

Based on the key difference \u201cjournal \/ book\u201d, the analysis therefore focuses on synchronous aspects across the media system. Here, too, the focus is on the transitions and potentially circular interdependencies and reciprocal relations between media and their implicit actors. Reception culture is analysed as a complex of heterogeneous processes \u2013 not clearly distinguishable from one another; in fact, overlapping one another \u2013 in public and semi-public spaces. It is these processes which \u2013 in partly designed, partly contingent combinations \u2013 constitute \u2018the\u2019 literary market. It is not so much actual reading practices that are up for debate here, rather the media enactment of reading, of audience, and of media formats. This, in turn, has a reflexive retrospective effect on each individual, concrete act of reading within a concrete medium, a medium which remains, in fact, a blind spot in terms of its historical facticity; it is imaginatively implied, but it becomes tangible through, for example, advertisements. Ultimately, it is about the negotiation of \u2018literariness\u2019 from a media point of view.<\/p>\n

Sub-project key questions regarding \u2018journal versus book\u2019:<\/p>\n

SP\u00a01:<\/strong><\/p>\n