Given the very definition of art, here is a few reasons why I would not consider television shows an art:

 

-A show exists solely because of its income; a television network needs high ratings to make the most money from advertising.

 

-Television shows are mass-produced: shows are usually pumping out 1 or more episodes weekly. I believe art can not be legitimately labeled as such if it is produced in such a way, and written on-the-spot like most show-writers do.

 

-Entertainment over creativity. In what other form of art is expression de-prioritized for entertainment of the masses. This brings about the mainstream music argument as well.

 

-Invocation of response from viewers is usually one of a few things: "tearjerky", suspense, laugh, sad, informative, thrilled.

 

 

 

I will acknowledge that there are of course arts involved in the making of a television show, such as animation, interior-designing, and cinematography, but the above list applies to a show as a whole.

 

 

 

Note: this list is made solely against the "Television is an Art" argument.

Given the very definition of art, here is a few reasons why I would not consider television shows an art:

 

-A show exists solely because of its income; a television network needs high ratings to make the most money from advertising.

 

-Television shows are mass-produced: shows are usually pumping out 1 or more episodes weekly. I believe art can not be legitimately labeled as such if it is produced in such a way, and written on-the-spot like most show-writers do.

 

-Entertainment over creativity. In what other form of art is expression de-prioritized for entertainment of the masses. This brings about the mainstream music argument as well.

 

-Invocation of response from viewers is usually one of a few things: "tearjerky", suspense, laugh, sad, informative, thrilled.

 

 

 

I will acknowledge that there are of course arts involved in the making of a television show, such as animation, interior-designing, and cinematography, but the above list applies to a show as a whole.

 

 

 

Note: this list is made solely against the "Television is an Art" argument.

 

Ooooh those are dodgy arguments.

 

First I'm in the UK, so as we have the BBC which is government sposored we have TV here which is not made for profit. And brit art is incredibly profit linked Damien Hirst has in fact made a whole art form out of profit making

 

Next theres no reason mass produced items can't be art, we went through that with Warhol in the sixties

 

Entertainment has never been exclusive of art, music is an art form

 

And the presence of pulp versions of a medium doesnt stop it being a medium, there are plenty of utterly pulpy books, and also consider how many drawings there are and what the majority of them evoke (not very much probably)

 

 

 

I dont mean to be so down on a post but the whole modern art movement liberated us from a narrow view of art as solely sculpture and painting and I'm so grateful that it has done so, anything can be art it only requires the eye of the beholder to percieve it so, to look for the artistry TV, graphic novels, architecture, design even advertising can all be considered art forms in themselves and exalted beyond they banal existance. At least in my opinion and also in the opinions of some very well respected artists. Of course your own opinion is your own and I respect it, but I urge you to consider the alternate

Do you really believe the book reader has even a comparable amount of books to choose from as the tv-watcher does for television shows?

 

The library of congress has over 32 million books. Has there even been ten-thousand television programs since the birth of the television?

 

 

 

As for easiness of publishing, thousands of authors every year use the technology of the internet to publish their own books. I know two people personally who used a self-publishing website called Lulu.com for their books. As for mainstream publishing, there are far more publishers in the United States than there are television networks. And on average, each of these publishers publish an exponentially greater amount of authors than television networks do for television programs.

 

 

 

Self-publishing, in any form, takes money. Lots of it. Publishing in a large house takes solicitation by an agent, who you pay. The proportion of published authors to produced TV shows is also reflected in the exponentially greater number of people who don't get picked up by a publisher. Either you are willing to invest large sums out of your pocket to do everything yourself through a venue far less lucrative, or you struggle to find a competent agent who will solicit for you. Your odds with an agent, and then a publishing house, improve the more marketable your book is, which has the unfortunate effect of reducing the quality considerably.

 

 

 

And that is the point: literature has fallen far, and placing it above television because "books have more merit" is a silly thing to do. Books have been around for thousands of years, motion picture for about a hundred. Less for the television we know today. So qualifying an argument for books by saying there are more books, therefore more good books, is pointless and self-evident. Television hasn't had the time to even come close to comparing its catalog to literature's. That does not discredit it as an art form. It was born into a world that has already applied the desire for profit above all else to long-standing liberal arts.

 

 

 

Which basically leads into your "entertainment over creativity." I think you're just being narrow-minded here. In what other form of art is expression de-prioritized? Every single one. Shinjula put it very well: pulp in a medium doesn't take away from its potential, and it's present in all forms of art. Not just TV.

 

Self-publishing, in any form, takes money. Lots of it. Publishing in a large house takes solicitation by an agent, who you pay. The proportion of published authors to produced TV shows is also reflected in the exponentially greater number of people who don't get picked up by a publisher. Either you are willing to invest large sums out of your pocket to do everything yourself through a venue far less lucrative, or you struggle to find a competent agent who will solicit for you. Your odds with an agent, and then a publishing house, improve the more marketable your book is, which has the unfortunate effect of reducing the quality considerably.

 

As I said in the post of mine you quoted, there are a few large companies that are willing to do all of the printing as long as you cut them a small share of your profits, Lulu being an example of one of these companies. Lulu is free, the only thing you pay for is the cost of paper and ink. It is very very cheap, and there is literally no room for loss.

 

 

 

And that is the point: literature has fallen far, and placing it above television because "books have more merit" is a silly thing to do.

 

Right here you are fusing two different contextual arguments into a concoction which does not represent my views. Neither books nor television should be objectively above one another, my opinions in this thread so far address two things: the illegitimacy of the art in television shows, and the possible detrimental effects of television viewing and culture.

 

 

 

Books have been around for thousands of years, motion picture for about a hundred. Less for the television we know today. So qualifying an argument for books by saying there are more books, therefore more good books, is pointless and self-evident. Television hasn't had the time to even come close to comparing its catalog to literature's.

 

The original counterpoint of mine you are referring to was to make clear that there is an obvious greater selection of books. You are saying just because television hasn't had the oportunity to make as many shows as authors have books, that the advantage of selection in books is nullified. No, just because television has the handicapped of only existing for a century doesn't take away the advantage books have of selection.

 

That does not discredit it as an art form. It was born into a world that has already applied the desire for profit above all else to long-standing liberal arts.

 

I never said the lack of selection was one of the reasons television is not a legitimate art form.

 

 

 

Which basically leads into your "entertainment over creativity." I think you're just being narrow-minded here. In what other form of art is expression de-prioritized? Every single one. Shinjula put it very well: pulp in a medium doesn't take away from its potential, and it's present in all forms of art. Not just TV.

 

Yes, in other arts there are many examples of "sell-outs", production and entertainment over creativity, etc. But I only consider these examples less legitimate than their counterparts. This is obvious in mainstream music, more and more musicians are "selling-out" for the masses, creating catchy, entertaining songs which they themselves don't even feel creatively attached to.

 

 

 

In television, there is much more selectivity. Given the relatively small amount of shows on television, it would be in the best interest of television networks to only host these creatively lacking shows. I will admit, there are shows that do break this pattern, and are able to maintain good ratings while not sacrificing artistic legitimacy, but they are scarce.

I think it's completely justifiable to consider television programs a form of art, but I do think that the other mediums generally have more 'artistic' value attached to them.

It's alright in small amounts. Some shows really are interesting, or funny. I can't sit through sports though or stuff like that.

It's alright in small amounts. Some shows really are interesting, or funny. I can't sit through sports though or stuff like that.

 

 

 

Ugh, I can't stand watching sports. I mean to each his own, but I'd rather be the one having fun than watching others have fun. I just don't get it. Some sports fanatic can quote me and try to tell me why they enjoy it, but I'm warning you, I'm still not going to understand.

It's alright in small amounts. Some shows really are interesting, or funny. I can't sit through sports though or stuff like that.

 

 

 

Ugh, I can't stand watching sports. I mean to each his own, but I'd rather be the one having fun than watching others have fun. I just don't get it. Some sports fanatic can quote me and try to tell me why they enjoy it, but I'm warning you, I'm still not going to understand.

 

I don't watch sports either. I think most peoples interest in televised sports lies in social competition with friends, gambling, and hoping for a specific team to win, rather than just for the sake of watching people have fun.

Sitting at the computer the entire time = extreme boringness, even with Hulu.

 

 

 

Chilling and watching TV is a good break. Watching sports, news, and different interesting programs that are on TV.

 

 

 

You watch sports to root for your team, watch a player you think is special, or just because you like the game.

As far as passive activities go, it ranks pretty high up there. Internet use on the other hand can be a little more of an active/stimulating use of your mind. I think if you took brain scans of the two activities you'd find a pretty big difference.

[hide=TV as "Art"]

Given the very definition of art, here is a few reasons why I would not consider television shows an art:

 

-A show exists solely because of its income; a television network needs high ratings to make the most money from advertising.

 

-Television shows are mass-produced: shows are usually pumping out 1 or more episodes weekly. I believe art can not be legitimately labeled as such if it is produced in such a way, and written on-the-spot like most show-writers do.

 

-Entertainment over creativity. In what other form of art is expression de-prioritized for entertainment of the masses. This brings about the mainstream music argument as well.

 

-Invocation of response from viewers is usually one of a few things: "tearjerky", suspense, laugh, sad, informative, thrilled.

 

 

 

I will acknowledge that there are of course arts involved in the making of a television show, such as animation, interior-designing, and cinematography, but the above list applies to a show as a whole.

 

 

 

Note: this list is made solely against the "Television is an Art" argument.

[/hide]

 

 

 

You obviously haven't met or even heard of the pretentious, snobby and stuck-up subculture known as "Dadaism".

 

 

 

Of course I completely agree with you, but some people will probably see things very differently.

I only watch The Simpsons on TV. The only other program that I've watched this year was Eurovision 2009.

You obviously haven't met or even heard of the pretentious, snobby and stuck-up subculture known as "Dadaism".

 

 

 

Of course I completely agree with you, but some people will probably see things very differently.

 

 

 

I don't see how it's snobby and stuck-up. While you (and I) might think this and this is what looks good, their standards are just different, and clearly, their ideal to put up a show rather than convey a message is working (television, pop art being great examples). Apples and oranges.

 

And no, I'm not trying to start a fight. ;)

You obviously haven't met or even heard of the pretentious, snobby and stuck-up subculture known as "Dadaism".

 

 

 

Of course I completely agree with you, but some people will probably see things very differently.

 

 

 

I don't see how it's snobby and stuck-up. While you (and I) might think this and this is what looks good, their standards are just different, and clearly, their ideal to put up a show rather than convey a message is working (television, pop art being great examples). Apples and oranges.

 

And no, I'm not trying to start a fight. ;)

 

 

 

[hide=While we're on the topic. RANT]

You obviously haven't met or even heard of the pretentious, snobby and stuck-up subculture known as "Dadaism".

 

 

 

Of course I completely agree with you, but some people will probably see things very differently.

 

 

 

I don't see how it's snobby and stuck-up. While you (and I) might think this and this is what looks good, their standards are just different, and clearly, their ideal to put up a show rather than convey a message is working (television, pop art being great examples). Apples and oranges.

 

And no, I'm not trying to start a fight. ;)

 

 

 

Let me guess. You like Stoppard ? And youre a Pomo ?

 

 

 

Well, I've read a few things here and there [and I'm being modest - *modest* ... ] and I find his total lack of consistency disturbing. Especially as a playwright. Postmodernism, Dadaism any "ism" that has to do with art and literature deserves to shoot itself in the [bleep]ing face. Not just art and literature but "alternate viewpoints". There are no theories, question everything, deconstructive arguments, bleh bleh blub blah. Everything is false. We can never really know anything, subjectiveness of the mind. Everything is interpretation. Seriously all three of you Baudrillard, Lyotard and Foucault can go screw themselves. Biggest bunch of idiots, these postmoderists, dadists, and syncretics.

 

 

 

Sorry, I was just in a ranting mood.

 

 

 

Note: I still like Derrida. He relies on logic rather than being a [bleep]ing idiot ponce.[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=More Rant]Also. Some WILL say, what apple ? What orange ? Why the heck do we call the orange - orange ? To truly understnad this analogy of "apples and oranges" we must first "deconstruct" them. Oooooh. I see. What makes this analogy pertinent. That these two fruits are completely different ? Who are WE to say that. BLAH BLAH BLAH. It gets boring.[/hide]

 

:D

I agree with Adrenal, that mentality is ridiculous. They try to think so far "outside the box" that they just somehow wind up in the box again. Imagine the box in the middle of the ocean - they purposely try to swim as far away from that box as possible, but they just wind up circling the planet and end up in the same exact spot. In other words, it's counterproductive. If you purposely try to be a nonconformist just for the sake of being a nonconformist, it makes you worse than the sheep - you're a sheep to your own ideals. Question everything? Fine, but that means to question yourself as well.

I agree with Adrenal, that mentality is ridiculous. They try to think so far "outside the box" that they just somehow wind up in the box again. Imagine the box in the middle of the ocean - they purposely try to swim as far away from that box as possible, but they just wind up circling the planet and end up in the same exact spot. In other words, it's counterproductive. If you purposely try to be a nonconformist just for the sake of being a nonconformist, it makes you worse than the sheep - you're a sheep to your own ideals. Question everything? Fine, but that means to question yourself as well.

 

 

 

Yeah, they are paradoxical ideologies.

 

 

 

We as humans define, quantify, and name the world around us. When you introduce this out-of-the-box thinking to anything commonly accepted or factual, it just gives everyone a headache. Although there might be objective truths, there is definitely not objective worth. If you disregard common precepts for artistic creativity because of some distrust you have with the "conformist" definition of "subjective" worth, then you are essentially turning your back on all human reason, not to mention heading down a long, futile road.

Television is essentially useless. For the most part, it is just a form of hollow entertainment, especially reality T.V. shows.

 

I will watch "educational" shows (ex, Man vs. Wild, Mythbusters, almost anything on the History Channel) and The Big Bang Theory. Everything else I just am bored by, except for the occasional episode of cartoon-comedy with friends (ex, The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park.)

 

Really it just comes down to keeping everything in moderation.

Really? Bumping a 9 month old topic just to make that post?

Some like it hot, some like it cold, some like to bump a thread, nine months old.

 

The discussion is probably exhausted by now, but I've been wondering if there is any actual data on this myself. As a kid, I rarely watched TV, and my math capabilities were arguably the best in the school. My younger brother, on the other hand, watches significantly more TV and is not quite as talented [/self-flattery]. It's circumstantial, but it got me thinking.

 

 

And also, what exactly do you all have against Dadaism? From the posts, all I got was a couple distorted arguements smothered in a delicious sauce of flame.

Really? Bumping a 9 month old topic just to make that post?

 

Perhaps unnecessary, but the posts had been stale, for as you said, 9 months, and even a topic of value can slide under the nearly daily avalanche of crap that this forum seems to attract.

I approve of the bump because this is my type of thread.

 

 

 

To all the TV-bashers, this is sort of like books. You can't compare literature as inefficient and wasteful because inappropriate or pornographic books have been made. You may not like the TV shows NOW but you can't hate that form of creation. I mean, human beings are a very visual species. One would expect visual representations of art and stories be an effective way to express ideas and beliefs (not to mention entertainment).

 

I do agree that reality TV has taken over too much already. I remember History Channel being with old-school "boring" documentaries and stuff I absolutely loved. Now what? Axmen, Ice Road Truckers, and some half-educational half-reality shows like the Naked Archeologist or Cities of the Underworld which aren't bad but I don't want to learn history with Bob Joe.

 

And in-evidently we can't talk about horrible TV without ranting about today's cartoons compared to before. All I got to say, is that kids cannot analyze and comprehend semi-complex situations. Let them be kids and let them have the bliss while they still can.

I approve of the bump because this is my type of thread.

 

 

 

To all the TV-bashers, this is sort of like books. You can't compare literature as inefficient and wasteful because inappropriate or pornographic books have been made. You may not like the TV shows NOW but you can't hate that form of creation. I mean, human beings are a very visual species. One would expect visual representations of art and stories be an effective way to express ideas and beliefs (not to mention entertainment).

 

I do agree that reality TV has taken over too much already. I remember History Channel being with old-school "boring" documentaries and stuff I absolutely loved. Now what? Axmen, Ice Road Truckers, and some half-educational half-reality shows like the Naked Archeologist or Cities of the Underworld which aren't bad but I don't want to learn history with Bob Joe.

 

And in-evidently we can't talk about horrible TV without ranting about today's cartoons compared to before. All I got to say, is that kids cannot analyze and comprehend semi-complex situations. Let them be kids and let them have the bliss while they still can.

 

That's essentially the problem these days though: to say television is really just to refer to that kind of garbage.

I think television is horrible for a developing brain. It forces a child's thought processes into passivity. Television is no replacement for parenting, and should be as limited as much as possible, or at least like everything, used watched in conservative moderation.

 

[hide][/hide]

I never watch TV anymore. It just went downhill with all this drama crap and reality shows.

I never watch TV anymore. It just went downhill with all this drama crap and reality shows.

 

"Reality" yeah... :rolleyes: