- Michael Bay: World Cinema in the Age of Populism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2018.
- The Long Take: Art Cinema and the Wondrous. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017.
- “Laura Mulvey the Curious Cinephile.” New Review of Film and Television Studies 15.4 (2017): 441-445.
- “Kluge’s Moments of Calm.” Stichwort: Kooperation. Keiner ist alleine schlau genug. Ed.Rainer Stollmann, Thomas Combrink and Gunther Martens. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2017. [Special edition of Aleander Kluge-Jahrbuch 4 | 2017]
- “Gesamtkunstwerk.” Cambridge History of Modernism. Ed. Vincent Sherry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 273-288.
- “Critical Theory and the German Studies Association.” German Studies Review 39.3 (2016): 553-563.
- “Dreamtime: The Specter of Cinema.” The Art of Dreams: Reflections and Representations. Eds. Barbara Hahn and Meike G. Werner. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. 161-180.
- “Concepts of Reading in the Digital Age.” Oxford Research Library of Literature. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.2. Online Publication Date: August 2016.
- On 24/7: Neoliberalism and the Undoing of Time. Co-edited with Necia Chronister. Special Issue of Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature. Volume 40.2. 2016.
- “Introduction: On 24/7: Neoliberalism and the Undoing of Time.” Co-authored with Necia Chronister. Neoliberalism and the Undoing of Time. Eds. Necia Chronister and Lutz Koepnick. Special Issue of Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature. Volume 40.2 (2016): 1-10.
- “Fields of Resonance” (Napoleon Gallery, Philadelphia)
- “Ripples of Sound” (The Promise of Cinema)
- “Inside Kluge’s Cosmic Cinema: Critical Theory and Mobile Spectatorship Today.” Glass Shards: Echoes of a Message in a Bottle. Eds. Richard Langston, Gunter Martens, Vincent Pauval, Christian Schulte and Rainer Stollmann. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2015. 125-143. [Special edition of Alexander Kluge-Jahrbuch 2 | 2015]
- “Writing after Kittler.” German Studies Review 38.1 (2015): 148-150.
- “Not the End: Fritz Lang’s War.” A Companion to Fritz Lang. Ed. Joe McElhaney. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015. 415-429.
- “Lorres Hände und die ‘Sprache des Exils’.” Peter Lorre: Der Mann der zuviel wusste. Eds. Brigitte Mayr and Michael. Vienna: Synema, 2014. 23-35.
- “Looping Trauma.” New Literary Observer (Moscow). 126 (2014): 18-28. [In Russian]
- “Can Computers Read?” Distant Readings: Topologies of German Culture in the Long Nineteenth Century. Eds. Matt Erlin and Lynne Tatlock. Rochester: Camden House, 2014. 333-346.
- “Experimental Television @50: Paik and Screen-Based Installation Art Today.” NJP Reader #4: Exposition of Music. Ed. Seong Eun Kim. Seoul, South Korea: Nam June Paik Art Center, 2014. 110-121.
- “실험 텔레비전, 그 후 50년: 백남준과 오늘날의 스크린-기반 설치 미술.” NJP Reader #4 – 음악의 전시. Ed. Seong Eun Kim. Seoul, South Korea: Nam June Paik Art Center, 2014. 96-109.
- “Wagner and New Media.” The Cambridge Wagner Encyclopedia. Ed. Nicholas Vaszonyi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 655-658.
The production and dissemination of written language today clearly trumps that of any other age, with e-mail defining new standards for the speed and instantaneity of mediated exchange, with blogs blurring what previous eras considered the lines between the intimate and the public, and with text messaging serving as a virtual life line for the communicative needs and self-expressive energies of an entire generation. The aim of this essay is to discuss and recast the framework in which we have come to discuss the promises and perils of electronic writing. Whereas advocates and critics alike debate the meaning of electronic writing by holding it up to the normative standards of older linguistic and poetic practices, my suggestion is to rethink what it might mean to be poetic and experimental once electronic writing has shifted the entire location of the written word in society.
Walter Benjamin famously read Baudelaire’s work as a heroic effort to probe the possibilities of writing and reading poetry in an era fundamentally hostile to poetic activity – a time in which the speed of modern traffic and the capitalist marketplace had seemingly eroded the pre-condition of poetic experience, namely contemplative absorption and autonomy. Where, so my questions for this essay, can we find the Baudelaire’s of our own age? And what might they do with their electronic devices, not simply to toy around with grammar and style, but to recalibrate through writing the rhythms, speeds, and temporalities of our accelerated present and thus, amid the very rush of machinic time, experiment with the art of absorption, the ecstasy of aesthetic suspension?
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Werner Herzog was often seen as a director attempting to translate Richard Wagner’s concept of the “total work of art” into the realm of German auteur cinema. According to this understanding, Herzog not only sought to turn the world into an aesthetic spectacle, but also to overwhelm his spectators with monumental gestures and grandiose visions. Recalling Wagner’s stress on mystical totality, Herzog was said to dissolve the boundaries of the aesthetic, to replace social engagement with romantic excess, and to redefine the sublime as a site of irrational transcendence and individual redemption. Like Wagner’s monumental operas, Herzog’s art—it was concluded—resulted in no less than a precarious aestheticization of life. It invalidated ethical or political considerations, and it approached the world as if it was grand opera itself, a universe solely designed for dramatic expressions of empathy and perverse self-sacrifice.
Koepnick’s essay argues against this tradition of reading Herzog as a full-fledged Wagnerian. Opera, for Herzog, offers a parallel world constitutively aware of its own limits and its theatricality and precisely only thus able to express its deepest truths and intensities. Instead of drawing the spectator under its spell, grand opera, for Herzog, operates as a medium in whose horizon self-awareness and self-forgetting, the reflexive acts of seeing and being seen, ecstatic absorption and theatricality energize one another without ever reaching the climax of a triumphal finale. Understood in this sense, grand opera serves as a model of what Brad Prager refers to as Herzog’s cinema of aesthetic ecstasy and truth. Koepnick’s essay is dedicated less to reconstructing the operatic matrix of Herzog’s films as a whole, and much more to probe the open tensions between reflexivity and absorption as manifested in various of the directors’ films. More concretely, his essay seeks to show how Herzog’s films repeatedly take recourse to the operatic so as to allow us to complicate the role of passion, absorption, and reflexivity in his overall work. While many critics during the 1970s and 1980s stressed certain continuities between Herzog’s neo-romantic passion for opera and an aestheticizing and latently fascistic revival of the sublime, the aim of Koepnick’s essay is to show that the role of opera in films such as Death for Five Voices (1995), Fitzcarraldo (1982) and Lessons in Darkness (1992) is dedicated to a project of productive failure, a project not only fully aware of the taut relationship between the theatrical and the contemplative, but also involving complex negotiations of epistemological, ethical, and aesthetic dimensions.