Chris,
I hope you don't mind,but I was reading some of Mike's old posts and found a couple of very interesting ones concerning our love of TV viewing and some caveats.
Thought others may find them interesting as well...
Posted 10-01-06 08:00 PM
Critiquing TV shows is all well and good. It’s also fun, and like most of you, I have my list of favorite programs. But when we critique commercial TV on it’s artistic merits, when we award 2 stars for this, or 4 stars for that, we do precisely what the networks, producers, and advertisers are counting on us to do – focus on the quality of the message, and cling to the mistaken belief that our favorite shows are being produced for the purpose of entertaining, informing, or enlightening us. In doing so, we forget the wisdom of McLuhan, who famously said back in the early sixties, “It’s not the message, it’s the medium.”
The real danger of television is not that it’s full of lousy shows, or funded by people who want to sell you soap and sneakers. The real danger lies in the fact that TV, even “good” TV, requires so little of us. Is this a bad thing? In terms of artistic review, I think it probably is. Good radio demands an imagination. Good books require focus and attention and deliberate purpose. Good paintings require an ability to see beyond the colors. But “good” TV requires nothing from us but consciousness. In general, you have to be suspicious of anything that passive.
We’ve all seen moments of artistry on television. But the level to which television programming is evaluated and critiqued and discussed in the context of “art” is really unbelievable. Entire magazines are dedicated to what’s on the TV, and endless reviews are written by countless critics discussing the “artistry” of this director or that performer. But what other art or entertainment form comes with such a myriad of blatant sponsors? I mean, what would an art critic say if The Mona Lisa had Yahoo! or “Microsoft” splashed next to DiVinci’s signature? How would a literary critic respond to a glossy insert from Toyota in the middle of Steven King’s next release? What would a theatrical critic say if someone walked onstage between acts of Death of a Salesman, and talked for a minute about the finger licking goodness of KFC? Or if Bernstein, while conducting West Side Story, wore a sign on his back that said Armani? The last time I went to see a movie – two weeks ago – the audience was booing, literally booing, at the commercials that were being aired before the film. They were outraged. Interesting. Like most hour-long shows, Dirty Jobs contains 44 minutes of programming, and 16 minutes of commercials. Sixteen minutes! Where’s the outrage?
In my opinion, the most important conversation to have regarding television is whether to own one or not. (I’m for it, by the way.) Then, if the decision is made to have a TV in the house, the next conversation should focus on the importance of critical viewing. We should not fast forward through commercials – we should watch them carefully, and talk about them with our kids. We should discuss the power of influence and advertising, we should be able to name the companies who pay for the programs we watch, and we should understand that they are directly attempting to persuade us to spend money on their product. We should draw a bright line between commerce and art, and be mindful of the way that line is deliberately blurred. Then, and only then, should we talk about the virtue of one program over another in terms of its “quality” or “entertainment value.”
To be clear, I’m not one of those people who feel guilty about making a living in a medium I secretly disdain – far from it. I’ve done many commercials in the past, and I’ll probably do some more. But if you doubt McLuhan's warning that "we become what we behold," consider the consuming desire of so many kids to be like R. Kelley, or P. Diddy, or Paris Hilton, or Britney Spears - a desire that has resulted in a culture of plastic surgery and glorified idolatry and drive-by shootings to steal a shirt or a pair of sneakers. Lewis Lapham talked about “a world of people who worship the objects of their own invention in the form of fax machines and high speed computers, and accept the blessings of Coca-Cola and dresses by Donna Karan as the mark of divinity.” He was right, I think. Art can move us, and advertising can influence us. But putting the two together the way commercial TV does is unexampled, and the fact that we watch anyway speaks dramatically to the power of the medium.
Nigel – that’s a long way of saying that, in my opinion, the people who watch television are 100% responsible for its content. Quality programs, like quality products, don’t succeed because of their quality. They succeed because they have an audience. And whether they know it or not, that audience – the consumer - holds all of the cards. We decide what stays on the tube, just as we decide what stays on our shelves or sits in our driveway.
In a free market, it is a mistake to confuse quality with popularity. So too in television. How else do we explain The Big Mac, The Pet Rock, The Leisure Suit, or shows about Psychics? To each his own.
Barnum was right, and so was Menken – “No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.” In the end though, for all the power of advertising, and all the seductive influence of the medium, we are still the arbiters of our own choices, and the buck stops with us.
In short, television programming could be a lot better, but given our complete freedom to choose, I’d say we have the exact TV we deserve.
Mike
(Here's the link to the
thread)
Posted 05-12-07 03:12 AM
"It's refreshing when someone admits to the dance of inner and other selves peformed daily by many."
Thanks Gayle. Refreshing is something I aspire to.
There is nothing easier to do than to say what you know people want to hear, and behave in the manner expected of you. Doing so would certainly make my life easier. Celebrities, actors, performers, spokespeople...they all want you to believe them whenever they speak. It's their job. So we have become accustomed to hearing them plead for our approval and curry our favor and jump through hoops to win our trust. Maybe I should do more of that here. Doing otherwise only enrages publicists and baffles fans. Believe me, I know.
I have spoken candidly on this board for over two years, and caused more than a few dustups by sharing my views on the show, advertising, and television in general. I make no apologies for any of it. I can see where a few of my posts, taken out of context, might suggest a mixed message. But look closely, and I think you'll see that my basic points are consistent. I have maintained that I am no different than the guy on Dirty Jobs. I have also suggested that, as a rule, it is dangerous to believe anything you see on television or read on line.
Kathy, I do not believe these views are at all contradictory. A "real" person is a 'complete' person, and Dirty Jobs is not capable of showing anyone in their entirety, me included. You wrote, "If you are hinting that what you post and reveal on this board is not yourself, then are you misleading yourself or fooling us? Why would you have a problem posting something that reveals the real Mike to us?"
In truth Kathy, I have no problem revealing a very real part of my life to you. In fact, I have, through the show and this board. What makes me uncomfortable sometimes, is the fact that so many people take so much of what they see and hear on TV at face value. People actually believe that they can come to know a person through this medium in a "real" way.
I'm flattered that I can connect with so many people who I will never meet in person, but I prefer to be honest and cautionary at the same time. And so, I assure people on the one hand that I am telling the truth when I post here, but encourage them to be skeptical and careful about all they see and hear, including my own ramblings. Anyone who does otherwise is running for office or selling something.
Mike
...tread linkgrasshopper
...helping Chris...
