Syllabus for my grad seminar on Seriality (spring 2017).
Category: Teaching
Syllabus: Frankenstein and Film (Stanford University, Spring 2017)
Syllabus for “Frankenstein and Film” (Spring 2017).
Syllabus: Introduction to Media (Stanford University, Fall 2016)
Syllabus for my Introduction to Media course, starting Monday, September 26.
Post-Cinema: Fall 2015, Duke University
Flyer for the seminar on Post-Cinema I’ll be teaching this Fall at Duke. The course expands on my “Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect” seminar from 2013, but it adds a new focus on videographic criticism and other kinds of hands-on experimentation with digital media. I’m hoping to get a mix of people interested in film and media theory, digital humanities, and media art. Really looking forward to this!
Post-Cinematic: Video Essays
For their final projects in my 21st-century film class, three of my students chose to make video essays, which they have now made available on a blog that they set up especially for this purpose. Over at 21stcenturycinema.wordpress.com, you will find Jesko Thiel’s exploration of transmedia storytelling, Christopher Schramm’s analysis of editing techniques in videogame-based “fragmovies,” and Andreas Merokis’s look at violence as narrative and/or spectacle in contemporary cinema. Take a look and leave them a comment!
Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect: Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures
Here’s the course description for a graduate-level course I’ll be teaching in the winter semester (October 2013 – February 2014) — a PDF of the full syllabus is embedded above:
Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect: Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures
Instructor: Shane Denson
Course Description:
In this seminar, we will try to come to terms with twenty-first century motion pictures by thinking through a variety of concepts and theoretical approaches designed to explain their relations and differences from the cinema of the previous century. We will consider the impact of digital technologies on film, think about the cultural contexts and aesthetic practices of contemporary motion pictures, and try to understand the experiential dimensions of spectatorship in today’s altered viewing conditions. In addition to preparing weekly readings, students will be expected to view a variety of films prior to each class meeting.
Course Themes and Objectives:
In this course, we set out from the apparent “chaos” that contemporary cinema often presents to us: the seemingly incoherent and unmotivated camerawork and editing, for example, by which many action films of the twenty-first century mark their departure from the “classical” norms of Hollywood-style narration and formal construction. From here, we seek to make sense more generally of cinema’s transformation in terms of new technologies and techniques (e.g. digital imaging processes, nonlinear editing, and attendant editing styles), in terms of new modes of cinematic distribution and reception (e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, and streaming services, HD TVs, smartphones, and tablet computers, but also IMAX 3-D and similar transformations of the big screen), in terms of non-classical narrative styles (e.g. recursive, database-like, non-linear, and even non-sequitur forms of storytelling), and in terms of broader phenomenological and environmental shifts that inform our experience, our embodiment, and our subjectivity in the digital era.
Several key concepts will help to orient our thinking about twenty-first century cinema and its relation to earlier cinematic modes. The first is “chaos cinema,” a term which Matthias Stork popularized in a compelling set of video essays focused particularly on recent action cinema; beyond this context, however, Stork’s notion of “chaos” resonates with the feelings and fears of many critics and theorists in the face of digital-era cinema. This broader perception of chaos is sometimes traced back to the digital unmooring of images from the indexical referents to which photographic films remained tied; on this basis, the somewhat oxymoronic term “digital film” is often linked to an even more unsettling, because more basic, sense of chaos: according to some critics, the digital (and the moving images it produces and supports) is correlated with a sweeping transformation of human society and subjectivity itself. On the other hand, though, not all critics are similarly alarmed by digital-era chaos. David Bordwell’s concept of “intensified continuity” effectively denies the radical stylistic break announced in Stork’s analysis; Bordwell sees the newer films as perhaps faster and even more hectic than classical Hollywood fare, but basically constructed according to principles of classical continuity – just intensified. By way of contrast, Steven Shaviro’s notion of “post-continuity” – developed in the context of his analysis of “post-cinematic affect” – provides another view of contemporary moving image culture, one which links formal and aesthetic transformations not only with new technologies but also with broader social, cultural, and economic changes underway right now.
As we think through these and related concepts, we will engage a variety of recent movies from formal, phenomenological, affective, cultural, and environmental perspectives. We will seek to understand whether a radical change has taken place in recent cinema, to assess what its significance might be, and in this way begin to think through the implications of and for our viewing habits in the twenty-first century.
You can find more of my syllabi here: http://uni-hannover.academia.edu/ShaneDenson
Profanity TV / Digital Humanities: Independent Studies Final Presentation
On Tuesday, July 17 (6:00 pm, room 615 of the “Conti-Hochhaus” at Königsworther Platz 1), the participants in my independent studies course on “Digital Media and Humanities Research” will present their projects at an event that is open to all interested parties. Linda Kötteritzsch, Julia Schmedes, and Mandy Schwarze will discuss their blog, “Bonfire of the Televised Profanities,” and its significance at the intersection of TV studies and digital media, while Urthe Rehmstedt and Maren Sonnenberg will approach questions around the digital humanities through the medium of the video essay. Spread the word, and check it out if you can!
Quality TV (Prezi @ Profanity TV)
Recently, I asked the participants in the independent studies course on “Digital Media and Humanities Research” to experiment a bit with presentation software, including the freely available Prezi — which the students running the “Profanity TV” blog did with very impressive results: here is their elaborate presentation on Quality TV. (And in case you missed it, make sure you check out their introductory “trailer” video for the site, which explains what the blog, i.e. their project for the course, is all about.)
Digital Humanities Resources
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx9DRazb6ZE]
In preparation for the independent studies course on “Digital Media and Humanities Research” that I’ll be supervising in the summer semester 2012, I’m asking prospective students to familiarize themselves with discussions and debates around the digital humanities. To get started, I thought I’d pull together a few relevant links.
First, the four videos embedded in this post offer a quick sampling of DH projects through lightning talks by recipients of grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities Office of Digital Humanities. (By clicking on any of these videos, you will be directed to the Youtube pages where you can find links to the individual projects presented.)
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFSyMgVbHpg]
Next, a really great place to get started is with a blog post entitled, appropriately enough, “Getting Started in the Digital Humanities” (over at Lisa Spiro’s blog Digital Scholarship in the Humanities). In fact, there are enough links collected there, all usefully contextualized, to get a really good feel for the type of work going on in the digital humanities, so if getting started and getting oriented were the only objectives, I could basically just leave it at that. Certainly, one could do worse than to just follow Spiro’s links (and then the further links to be found at the pages thus linked) — DH is a highly networked field of inquiry, discussion, and debate, so in this way (i.e. starting from that blog post) you’d likely run into just about all the critical sites and positions in the field in due time.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClZF4Sroi8]
Nevertheless, I also wanted to point more explicitly to some of the debates going on in and around DH, which is not only one of the fastest growing but also one of the most contested areas of humanities at the current moment. One of the best resources here is the brand new collection Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold. But there are (of course) also lots of relevant pieces online, and these are just a few:
Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s positive, inspiring message, “Do ‘the Risky Thing’ in Digital Humanities,” speaks to the excitement that a lot of scholars (and students) feel when they come into contact with DH. Stanley Fish’s New York Times opinion piece, “The Old Order Changeth,” puts forward a much more skeptical view of this excitement, while Fish’s follow-up piece, “The Digital Humanities and the Transcending of Mortality,” goes so far as to call it a positively “theological” fervor. Needless to say, Fish’s interventions have stirred up quite a controversy among DH people.
Though not a direct rejoinder to Fish’s criticisms, another piece by Kathleen Fitzpatrick, “Networking the Field,” might be profitably read with an eye to evaluating Fish’s take on DH; however, Fitzpatrick’s paper (originally a talk she gave at MLA 2012) is much more than that, as it offers an eloquent assessment of what she takes to be some of the central challenges (rather than theological dogmas) of digital humanities today. (Meanwhile, Fish has continued to pronounce the divide he sees between digital humanities and traditional humanities in another controversial piece, “Mind Your P’s and B’s: The Digital Humanities and Interpretation.”)
Finally, Ian Bogost has added a very different skeptical voice to the debates. Bogost is, among other things, a game designer and scholar, so his skepticism is hardly directed at the “digital” in “digital humanities.” Instead, in his posts “The Turtlenecked Hairshirt” and (the more recent) “This is a Blog Post About the Digital Humanities,” Bogost’s skepticism is directed at the self-referential, meta-level discourse about the digital humanities that he sees DH indulging in at the expense of making, building, or creating something. Whether or not one agrees with Bogost’s criticism, he certainly speaks to a central tension, and to the search for balance, between the levels of (meta-)theory and practice that in many ways shape the field of DH.
Again, these are just starting points, hardly a comprehensive guide to contemporary positions, debates, methodologies, or research perspectives. Again, for a significant step in that direction, I recommend Matthew K Gold’s new edited volume, Debates in the Digital Humanities. Finally, I welcome (and would very much appreciate) comments and links to other sites that might be of value to students just getting oriented in DH!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxQKApXu3Xk]
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.~