When a media text makes reference to another text that, on the surface, appears to be unique and distinct. [1]


is a form of intertextual discourse in which one text makes critical commentary on another text. This concept is related to Gérard Genette’s concept of hypertextuality in which a text changes or expands on the content of another text. [2]


is a postmodern theory of the inter-connectedness of all literary works and their interpretation. [3]


is a form of intertextual discourse in which one text makes critical commentary on another text. This concept is related to Gérard Genette’s concept of hypertextuality in which a text changes or expands on the content of another text. [4]


Genette means by architextuality “the entire set of general or transcendental categories – types of discourse, modes of enunciation, literary genres – from which emerges a singular text.”  This  taxonomic relation is now cybertextually challenged by ergodic discourses, textonomical genres and the concept of metamedia. At stake here is the whole necessary and unmanageable project of western poetics, be it what may, a cluster of modal, generic, formal and thematic categories and considerations, or just a general system of functions and possibilities.

Metamedia is taken here to mean that every form of digital literature could easily borrow and embed elements, devices and features previously associated with other forms of art and non-art. What are we supposed to make for example of textual movies, kinetic textual choreography, or textual architecture? They are definitely not multi- or intermedia but they don’t function like traditional literary objects either although their content is still strictly textual. We are moving here in the no man’s land between poetics and esthetics, a space that was not supposed to exist at all. If you want a practical example that goes even further, just observe the text to form editor at work in Christa Sommerer’s and Laurent Mignonneau’s Verbarium, and imagine adding to it a reverse process from form to text.

As we all know cybertext theory gives us 576 media positions or textonomical genres to describe how textual systems function. There has been no or little attempt to combine textonomical genres to their more traditional counterparts, that is, textological genres, or to study that relation. For example is hypertext fiction a new genre or mode or something else or something not so special after all – and what about the MOOs and MUDs? And should we state that Story Space and HyperCard products are of different genre? Basically, this means we should decide how to take into account the material and functional differences so foreign to western poetics for some 2500 years. The simple solution is to add a new parameter to the aforementioned cluster, the material-functional one consisting of 576 media positions. Similarly we can add our ergodic mode to those traditional narrative and dramatic ones, but that move may well cause more problems than it helps to solve because all media positions are clearly not ergodic.

There are also practical concerns whether or not we’ll accept the deconstructive law of genre that there is no such thing as pure genre. We can still show the general difference between digital cybertext hybrids and print hybrids, that is, between genre blenders and genre benders. In what comes to these hybrid forms and functions, any approach has sooner or later to face their bi- and multidirectional formation and transformation processes. This leads us to boundaries and over-lapping areas between narrative and drama, poetry and prose, fiction and non-fiction, and narratives and games. If we can imagine generators and other dynamic cybertextual machines crossing these borders n times to both directions, there’s not much sense to continue clinging to the concept of the architext anymore. This way out is a kind of short cut or short circuit since even though we got rid of the bigger problem completely, the smaller ones are still there to be solved.”


  • Intertextuality: The only similar works that I am aware of, were also done by Corinne Day and therefore I do not think this photograph is quoting another. However that could be my lack of knowledge and given more research I may come across something. This photograph seems to hold the essence of what the media has lead us into believe would be a reasonable scene for someone doing drugs and living that kind of lifestyle.
  • Architextuality: This photograph fits perfectly into the genre of Social Documentation as it is a clear picture of what living this lifestyle is like.
  • Metatextuality: Everything about this photograph is criticizing the fashion photography world. She has taken everything that fashion glamorous photographs have and reversed it. In stead of the flawless beauty who could pass as some kind of Goddess she has given us an average looking skinny girl, no makeup, no perfectly styled hair, chipped nail polish, a dirty floor, dirty feet and a horrible setting. Corinne is challenging the whole perspective of the fashion model’s perfect lifestyle and showing what I believe from research, is the more realistic lifestyle of fame.
  • Reflexivity: I believe that Corinne Day was very aware of every aspect in this photograph when she took it as everything about it challenges something else. Although there is (to my knowledge) no link to someone’s work directly, I think she took ideas from others and mixed it with the whole idea of the grunge scene (Heavy rock music, drugs, sex and rock’n’roll, do it for a laugh) and is there for very reflective but to a wide range of things.
  • Explicitness: When I first looked at this picture, although I wasn’t informed on everything that had influenced Corinne Day, I still seemed to make a few right assumptions about it. My original thoughts were pretty correct and therefore I think this photograph is very explicit. I grasped many of the meanings that I believe Corinne Day wanted to portray with very little knowledge of the fashion industry and photography, which now that I have done research I am able to fully understand and I have recognised a few other little bits that I had not originally picked up on.
  • Criticality to Comprehension: When I first began this, I had very little pre-knowledge about this industry and therefore I do not believe you need a great deal to understand this. The preconceptions of beauty are everywhere in the media and I think you pick up on them without realising and therefore they become basic knowledge. We are constantly bombarded with imagery of  the perfect body, perfect hair and the perfect features that when we see a photograph, like this one, we instantly notice the differences and although we may not understand the entire reasoning behind them we do get the gist of it.
  • Alteration: From my previous research I have found that there was a great deal of this kind of photography that stemmed from photographers like Corinne Day and Nan Goldin. However it seemed to be more underground at the time and the over glamorous photographs were gracing magazine covers and advertisements. Yet, from my own personal experience, I have come in to contact with this type of photography over the years and it seems to be becoming more popular especially in magazines like Nylon and Interview. Therefore I don’t think that much has changed. There seems to be two separate fashion photography styles now, this one and the glamorised one.



Sources – all accessed 27/11/2010