Intermedia and Photography's Expanded Field

Question 1: How does Higgins come up with his term "Intermedia"? He goes into detail about how it is not mixing artistic mediums that still suggest grandeur and ornateness, the passiveness of traditional art. It must not only mix medias but also engage its viewers, audience, and society in discourse and converstaion. "Intermedia" seems too weak of a term to be coined for such activisim, grassroots art. Since this type of art must challenge dialogues and push people to question and search for answers, it not only encompassed multiple art mediums but must also be political, social, psychological and much more - shouldn't it be more appropriately termed "interdisciplinary"

Question 2: Baker describes "cinematic" still films done by artists such as Wall to be fragmented, absent, discontinuous and with a sense of "counter-presence". I'm still a little confused as to what exactly a film still is, and if they are all cinematic, but it seems to me that this counter-presence quality they have and project onto their viewers is due more to its transitivity rather it being fragmented. Since it is not permanent, and only there for a moment, this contributes to its disjointed nature. The author describes the nature of these cinematic photographs as being more rooted in their cultural environments rather than the art of photography itself. How is this so? Do current social and cultural thoughts help shape and define specific art fields such as photography? Is it a working and dynamic definition?