television and the short story
Thanks for the comments on my last post. Michael, I was glad for a little more historical insight than I had. I think both you and Jesse hit the central issue that people have when dealing with television: we have a avery visible reminder of who its sponsors are. That isn't to say that films aren't sponsored--they most certainly are, typically by whatever products you see artfully panned over in the course of the film--but where television is concerned, we can't really ignore it. I have friends who are severe movie fans, and who attend and perform in various and sundry stage performances, and yet fervently proclaim they "hate t.v." This has, more and more, come to seem to me as a false dichotomy. So here are my thoughts on the matter.
For centuries, entertainment and literary endeavours centered solely around the written word and the live performance of the written word. During those centuries, there were typically two types of literature: really long (epic poems, full-length plays, novels) and short (narrative and lyric poems, one-act plays, short stories). With the advent of the twentieth century a new form of entertainment was introduced: the radio. Radio then ushered in the age of motion picture technology and finally the television set. Somewhere along the line, film became an accepted form of artistic endeavour while television has largely, in America at least, remained marginalized. (Michael's comment on last post gives a great summary of one reason why) Typically the reasons given are that television is commercialized, that television writers are hacks, that television shows are shallow and don't tackle philosophical matter, that television characters are not well developed, that television is an artistic sell-out. My problem with every one of those arguments is that they can just as easily apply to any other artistic realm as well as they can apply to television.
Television is a commercial endeavour--it has to be. Without commercial sponsors, there isn't any money. The same is true for any other art form. Plays have corporate sponsors and advertising sponsors listed in the program. Broadway plays have pages of ads in their programs, yet they don't receive criticism for being commercialized. I would guess the reason is two-fold: it is already accepted as art, and we still have to buy a ticket. Movies, which are gaining acceptance as art--some film great enough to be labelled "classic" already--are also sponsored commercially. Previews are ads. That's not counting the actual ads that often play before the previews. Often, products are highlighted in movies--ever notice how many of the computers are Macs? How many people drink Coca-cola? Even visual art must appeal to buyers or the artist cannot support himself. All art contains a certain measure of commercialism if it is to be successful.
For the sake of space--and because the rest of the criticism are similar--I'll combine the rest as a single issue: Television produces a lower quality product that doesn't challenge the audience to tackle weighty matters. Here comes my one allowance of sarcasm: because all other art forms at all other times have always produced high quality pieces that constantly challenge the audience with weighty ideas. Sure. I've read Restoration plays--they make todays raunchiest sit-coms look prudish and high quality. Seriously. The fact is that all artistic and entertainment expression has many levels of product. Yes, some shows are ridiculous and come nowhere near the bar of "art." But the same is true for many novels, plays, even visual art works. That, to me, is no reason to throw out an entire genre as worthless. I understand that it is easier to pin the label "art" or "classic" on a movie because it's a single package--a piece of artistic communication that can be watched in a single sitting and evaluated. It is seamless, allowing a particular idea or event to be examined and weighed deeply at a single time. Television does not have that advantage. For that reason, a well-crafted television show, to me, deserves even more respect. Television writers have a shorter time-frame in which to present ideas and events while holding the audience's attention through commercial breaks. That is not an easy task. They don't have a huge screen on which to unfold their events which limits the awe and emotional attachment response that they can produce. And even with the advantages of working with film, how many films have you been to see with expectation that completely let you down? And how many films are just about creating some cheap laughs. The product is solely the result of who is producing it, not where it appears.
I am completely convinced that as we move more and more into an age of digital media, television, not just film, needs to be given credence as a legitimate art form. Not that all television will rise to the form of "art" or "classic" any more than all plays or novels will. If we accept the film as the digital equivalent to the novel, the epic, the full-length play, then I think we ought to consider the medium of television as the digital equivalent of the short-story, the narrative, the one-act play. If we can look at short stories as legitimate pieces of literature that have something to say, then why can we not accept television in that way? Frankly, much of what we consider "classic" today was written for entertainment; and in the cases of some novels, was even serialized with sponsors (Dickens...). I would not find it surprising if 100 years from now, television series were looked on in the same manner--as a 20th/21st century literary form. Don't get me wrong, not all television is good literature (Yes, Dear--ick), but some of it downright brilliant (The Office, yay). I just think t.v ought to be given the fair shake that most of us are more than willing to give to film.
Sorry, this is rather longer than I intended. Oh well. I'm not reading it. :) At any rate, I would certainly welcome some more thoughts on the matter. And perhaps what shows you think ought to be considered as future classics and why?
Comments
I think you should check out the book I am currently reading Real Presences by George Steiner discusses some of these issues.
I hate TV. But I watch it. And I disagree that Broadway shows aren't critized for "selling out". I criticize them virtually every time I see or hear one of them. by and large, Broadway shows are built for the consumer and intended to evoke an immediate financial response. Art? Perhaps, but it's the weakest kind of art, and I'm very skeptical that even the best of Broadway (West Side Story, for example) will stand the test of tiem.
That's the real issue. The thing that most determines the legitimacy of art is its tenacity, its ability to be observed and enjoyed by generation after generation. TV, by its design, is not shooting for that kind of longevity. It shoots for the immediate, and then seeks to move you to the next thing. Therefore, I think I will be difficult for TV to ever be seen as legitimate art.
Posted by: jscottkill | November 14, 2006 10:39 AM
It shoots for the immediate
What we too easily forget, though, is that most of what we consider classic art was shooting for the immediate at the time. Sophocles was writing for his current audience in order to win dramatic prizes, yet we consider his plays tragic art. Shakespeare wasn't shooting for the fame of longevity, he was writing plays for his current audience so he could pay the bills. The presence of universal themes and longevity doesn't indicate a desire to create classic art--it reflects a knowledge of human nature that is always present. And presenting human nature in its various forms is appealing in the immediate. There were probably more "artistic" literary pieces written in the past--pieces aiming for longevity--yet they did not capture the immediate and so they aren't even around anymore. In order for art to meet the qualification of being long-lasting, it has to spark the public interest, and that usually doesn't happen unless it captures audiences in the immediate. Aiming for the immediate doesn't negate the possiblity of ending up with longevity.
Posted by: dramatic ren | November 14, 2006 02:09 PM
I entirely, fundamentally disagree.
Art isn't good and lasting because it tells the truth (ie universal themes). Almost all art tells the truth.
You read the Rennaissance plays along with me in Autrey's class. You know that Thomas Kid, Ben Johnson, even Marlowe, etc. were much more widely received than Shakespeare was in his day. Old Bill differed in that he wasn't simply trying to please, he was trying to create something singular and new. There is a reason that we don't go see productions of The Jew of Malta anymore, though it was much more popular than The Merchent of Venice; one was written for the immediate gratification of audiences and the pocket book, the other was constructed using an innovative aesthetic. Don't forget, good ole Bill was better known as an actor than a playwright; he didn't do what he did simply for immediate gratification. If you read through his plays, especially the last ones, you get the idea that he was concerned with creating a canon of work that he would be pleased with (consider Prospero's significant monologue in The Tempest when he lays down his magic; eerily autobiographical). When he was done with Tempest, he quit. How many (there are a few) TV series were consumed with creating that kind of aesthetic? that sense of completion?
Posted by: jscottkill | November 14, 2006 03:56 PM
I think that my opinion falls somewhere between both of yours.
How can we judge what Shakespeare was writing for? How can we say that he was any more or less commercial than Kid or Marlowe? Just because his works better capture the universal and his turn of phrase could sling a metaphor like a sword doesn't (I think) lay any sound basis for his motivation in writing. Perhaps he was just a better writer, still writing to pay the bills. And, perhaps Killian is right and he was a great Bohemian spirit writing for his art and for the promotion of Freedom, beauty, truth and love. Either way, I think we give far too much credit to our abilities to interpret the playwright's life from his work...especially when we have no significant historical record of even the great events of his life...we have reference to his parent's, his marriage, and his and his children's baptisms. That is about it.
What I don't think is that lines can be drawn so succinctly between the big screen and the small screen as to which is commercial. I think there are great artists in both worlds, and that there are narcissistic sell out commercial artist in both genres as well.
Posted by: xpressionccr | November 15, 2006 11:18 AM
So, are you saying that you think art, in order to be art, must have been created with the motivation of being art? Because I would disagree with that. I would also disagree that across the board art created for financial reasons if the weakest kind of art. What about art created to escape ex-communication? There is no particularly grand motivation there; in fact, it's a highly personalized consumer motivation. Yet, the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel is unequivocable considered excellent art. Michaelangelo hated doing it. He did it because the Pope said he had to. Would that then make it weak art?
I think it's very dicey to gauge the strength of value of art based on motivation. While we certainlly know that Virgil was purposing to create grand epic poem when he composed The Aeneid, we have no idea what motivated Homer to compose either of his epics. Is, then, The Aeneid more worthwile as art? Is it better or more lasting because the intent was different? What about Dickens? He is considered the greatest novellist of the Victorian Era, but he wrote serially for magazines. He was known to eliminate characters and shorten certain storylines based entirely on audience response, and his subject matter was not intended to do anything other than entertain and criticise current social ills. Yet his work is universal. I do not think intent creates more lasting works at all, necessarily.
But, to notch it back a bit. I wasn't really intending to compare television programs to Shakespeare. Film can certainly be compared to great plays, but television is far more the short story or narrative poem of digital media. The question then becomes, was someone like E.A. Poe attempting to create a lasting body of lgitimately artistic work? Or was he simply writing what he found interesting and inspiring? When he wrote "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," was he simply creating something of interest and entertainment, or can we really dare to infer that he wanted to create a new genre and write a story that continues to be read today? What about Ray Bradbury? While, based on my knowledge, I would guess that he chooses specific topics that he thinks needs to be addressed, but I don't get the impression that he's trying to create classic art. I do consider his work, especially something like Dandelion Wine to be lasting and artistic. Certainly all t.v. will never rise to the level of "art," but some have and will. I would consider The Twilight Zone, as a whole, to be art and to be classic. I think in a hundred years, it will still be around as such. Certain episodes of some shows resound with the viewer the way certain stories resound with the reader. "City on the Edge of Forever" is a fabulous Star Trek episode that deals convincingly with the import of our actions, and what would we do if given the chance to go back and change them. If we can give certain stories and poems a place in the realm of art, we can't we concede that television is a medium that can produce works of art also?
Posted by: dramatic ren | November 15, 2006 11:32 AM
That above comment was directed to Killian. :) I was in the middle of mine and came back to find yours, Chris. Probably yours says in a more succinct way what I spent 3 paragraphs saying. Ha ha.
K, I do think you have good points, and I respect our differences. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, for the record. :) I just think that as the media of production and literature shift, we ought to be willing to evaluate the new media as more than just a means of entertainment.
Posted by: dramatic ren | November 15, 2006 01:22 PM
Why does your page cut off the end of the comments like that?? Darned layout!
Posted by: xpressionccr | November 15, 2006 03:01 PM
I don't know. I need to bug Jesse about it. I don't know how to fix it. It's only the comments, too. Weird.
Posted by: dramatic ren | November 15, 2006 03:03 PM
If you can honestly say that Star Trek contributes to the overall growth and significance of the Western Canon...well....
I think you both may have missed my point about intent. (BTW, watch A&E's biography about Bradbury, and I think that you will see that you are in error about his intent. He claims that from the beginning he desired to create a lasting, significant name for himself.) I have tried to write things that would stand the test of time and significantly add to the Canon, but just because I tried with that intent in mind, doesn't mean that I made anything of any significant value.
Posted by: jscottkill | November 16, 2006 08:52 AM
I would say that particular episodes of Star Trek do contribute significantly, just as much as they would were the idea dealt with ina written format.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying that intent alone is enough for something to be significant. But you do seem to be saying that it is necessary. The problem with that is that unless there is an interview, or a letter, or a tell-all book that specifically gives us an artist's intent, there is no way for us to know what their intent and motiviation are. We are merely speculating with some hindsight. Just as we are merely speculating if we assume that all television writers are writing merely for immediate entertainment purposes. We can't know another person's intent unless they tell us; and that's even not purely reliable as people's intentions change and develop over time. Therefore, making a judgment on whether someone's work--or even an entire medium--is art based in any way upon whether they intended it to be art is very flawed, in my opinion.
Posted by: dramatic ren | November 16, 2006 09:35 AM