Television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations. – AOD pg. 16
Television’s conversations promote incoherence and triviality… the phrase ‘serious television’ is a contradiction in terms. – AOD pg. 80
[[Before a short response I offer two qualifications. The first is from Postman who acknowledges some benefits of television in its power to persuade people of righteous causes where rational argument might lack influence (17). The second qualification is my own: while I am going to argue that Postman is off base in his understanding of television as a medium his points are nearly identical to criticisms of Facebook that I have made elsewhere. I intend to get to Facebook as a rhetorical space at some point in the future, but I want to acknowledge similarities in the two situations up front (and I hope to distinguish my argument from his in important ways later on).]]
While I agree that television can present itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations, I also think it is often said carrier as well as being, in itself, a cultural conversation. This goes back to the point I made toward the end of the last post – technology is bound up in culture as a product that is shaped by and reshapes its viewer. The popularity of television generally among various demographics and different shows’ performances both popularly and critically are the stuff of cultural conversations. Obviously television provides a unique space wherein different shows can present their own reality and important metaphors unfold within those realities, according to the inner logic of each show (or genre). Why is it that Huxley’s “Brave New World” can seriously speak prophetically to issues of status, identity, technology, and community within our own culture but a television show that attempts to accomplish the same thing would be deemed trivial? Certainly both mediums can accommodate a wide variety of genres[1] – why must everything that is on television be relegated to entertainment? And why can’t important cultural conversations be entertaining (much like Huxley’s work)?
As a bit of a television fiend, I would be remiss if I didn’t offer some examples of television taking itself seriously and having important cultural conversations:
This powerful clip from Mad Men won't embed, but it is definitely worth clicking over to.
And perhaps a couple of examples of television taking itself less seriously but still raising important cultural issues (if even through absurdity):
[1] Of course there is a difference between a mediums ability to accommodate and its conduciveness to a particular genre. Postman would say that accommodation is irrelevant, but then what makes books different? This goes back to my last post – we simply need to be equipped with the skills necessary to interact with television more critically and then what objections remain? We can go back over printed text? That’s what DVRs are for!
No comments:
Post a Comment