Why Do I Love Television So Very Much?

by: Alan McKee / Queensland University of Technology

Federico Fellini 8 1/2

Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2

[This document is an RFC. The RFC–Request For Comment–was the mode by which information was shared in the design of the Internet. Designers put out proposals, not claiming that they were the absolute truth, but offering them as suggestions, for others to agree, disagree, or use to think with. The idea appeals to me as a model for discussion in the humanities. By disseminating my own way of seeing culture as an RFC, I can avoid both arrogant assertions that this is the truth about a medium on the one hand; and a solipsistic ‘anything goes’ attitude on the other. I’m not telling people that this is the truth; I’m asking if anybody else thinks the same way, or finds this a useful approach. If so, let’s get together and agree that this is how we see the world.]

Why is television my favourite medium? Moreso than cinema, radio, even than books? An evening on the couch, mug of tea in my hand and the TV guide in front of me, favourite programs marked in yellow highlighter … This I love more than anything.

Why is that?

Can I find any insight in my relationship with other cultural forms? With art, say? Why does art make me so angry, television so joyful? Why is it, for example, that my experiences of art make me want to sign a petition calling for all its public funding to be cut?

No, that’s not quite true. Not all art makes me angry. After all, I like The Simpsons and Buffyand The Amazing Race, all of which are clearly art. Rather, it’s Art that upsets me – the institutions of turning beautiful things in culture (The Simpsons, Buffy, The Amazing Race) into something that must be regarded with reverence. The museums and galleries and Art magazines, university courses on Art Theory and people who call themselves ‘Artists’ as though that were an identity – these are what upset me. They make me want to scream.

Why is that?

The cast of Battlestar Galactica

The cast of Battlestar Galactica

I try so hard not to be prejudiced. I try to approach Art with an open mind. But I find, over and over again, that lovers of Art resist explaining their affection in terms of their relationship with their love object. They won’t simply say, I love this, this moves me, this excites me, this makes my life better – the kinds of insights that show a person’s humanity and promote fellow feeling. Rather, so often, in telling me about their passions they want to frame them in terms of their own superiority. Not only do they want to say, ‘I love this’, but also – ‘and if you don’t love this, then there is something wrong with you’. Not only, ‘This moves me’, but also, ‘and it moves me in a way that entertainment doesn’t move you’. Not only ‘This makes my life better’, but also, ‘If your life doesn’t have this in it, your life is less worthwhile than mine’. And when I say, but Big Brother moves me in the same way as Fellini moves you, I have had Art lovers tell me that it doesn’t. That there is no way that my response to that text could possibly be as subtle, as profound, as meaningful as is theirs to 8½. When I tell them that Battlestar Galactica excites me just as much as Barbara Hammer’s films do them, they disagree. They tell me that I’m wrong. That I don’t know true sublimity. As though they have lived inside both of our heads, and they know from comparison that their sensibilities are more profound than mine. Which makes me want to swear.

Watching television makes me a better person. It reinforces my best qualities. When I’m watching television I’m genuinely interested in the lives it shows me and the ways that are different from mine. I am joyful in the encounters it offers with difference. Because television doesn’t make Art’s claims that those who have different pleasures are inferior. Television is, as John Hartley puts it so well, the ultimate ‘cross-demographic’ medium, the host of ‘the smiling professions’. Television doesn’t want to put anybody offside. Television wants to bring everybody into the audience, smiling. Come in, sit down, laugh with me (except, of course, for Fox News. That’s an exception. It doesn’t represent television). The Simpsons may, quite rightly, mock intellectuals who think they are superior to everyone else (‘But you can’t hate me!’, yells Homer after his retreating friends, when the removal of a crayon from his brain boosts his IQ to genius levels and renders him an unbearable snob: ‘I’m your better!’); but it also includes jokes that only Art lovers will get (Thomas Pynchon appears in the cartoon, but only with a paper bag over his head). It speaks to different people, in different ways, at the same time. Television likes it audience, and flatters its viewers that their opinions matter – tell us what you think, says television, performing the belief that democracy is true and that what the individual thinks is important. And for television, it is true. It is a generous, warm, inviting, kind medium–defined by its desire to reach out and draw communities together. It is the ultimately civilized medium in that sense.

Thomas Pynchon on The Simpsons

Thomas Pynchon on The Simpsons

Television is civilized. But Art isn’t. If television is the natural home of the smiling professions, then Art is the world of the scowling professions. If television flatters its audience, then Art shouts at us. It tells me that I’m stupid, that I’m vulgar, that I’m not as good as Art lovers. That I have no soul and no insight and that therefore my opinions and views and loves and passions don’t matter. That I should leave the business of running culture–and, in an ideal world, politics and the public sphere as well–to my betters. To the poets and Artists who hate me and who will tell me what is good for me and what I am allowed to consume. All the while frowning and saying ‘should’ and waving their fingers at me angrily. Art–as I have experienced it in my years of study and social interaction with Art lovers–is about divisions, drawing lines in the sand–here is Art, here is not–and telling people that they are stupid and shallow and insensitive if they don’t like the same things as the Art lovers do. Art is, in this sense, barbaric. It’s full of hatred and it’s looking for a fight. It does not show us the best of ourselves. It shows us the worst. It makes me angry–pouring out expletives and invective in a way that lowers me as a person. Art brings me down to its own level. It makes me no better than itself.

While television shows us love and joy and intimacy and domestic lives and people listening to others.

Which may be at least one reason that I love television so very, very much.

Image Credits:
1. Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2
2. The cast of Battlestar Galactica
3. Thomas Pynchon on The Simpsons

Please feel free to comment.

image_print

70 comments

  • I too have a love for television which some people claim to be a lazy and unintelligent appreciation. It is an interesting point to mention that the pretentiousness of Art tends to put others down, while television invites them. I agree with this statement and as a student studying Film and Media studies, I am often insulted by students of other majors who tend to discredit TV/film studies as worthy or intellectual. Television is an art form, one more widely enjoyed by our society, yet Art enthusiasts seem to believe that Art, while confusing and uninteresting to many people, is superior. I think this is because it is more exclusive, Art makes people think that if they don’t like it then they must not be smart enough, but television has a show and a genre for every type of person. In addition, television is much less limited than Art in that through its medium, it allows for a greater diversity of art and ideas to be displayed to viewers. For this reason, I also love television, both as a form of entertainment and as a subject to study.

  • Pingback: Week 1: The Times, They Are A-Changin’ « STEVIE VULTURE

  • Pingback: Why bother studying television? « Alex England TV Cultures Journal

  • Pingback: First Lecture – ‘Good evening, and welcome to television’ « Me and TV

  • Pingback: How a Show About Nothing Taught Me Everything « tvkilledthecelluloidstar

  • Pingback: The TV fanatics are at war « Worship Your Idiot Box

  • Pingback: Intro to TV Culture | Remotely Interesting

  • Pingback: Jackson Pollock’s Big Brother « aelomdahl

  • Pingback: Blundell gets on his soapbox. « twentysomethingtelevision

  • I like what Nicholas Rigopoulos said.
    KATA

  • What is the value of an artist or their work of art? What can an artist accomplish? How is Television influencing our culture?

    I’ve been watching MAD MEN. I see that the women were pretty loose in the 60’s (NOT!!!) not unless they lived on a commune. T.V is not very well historically based in such shows. But can actually re-write history as we know it. Is there an agenda to do so?

    Most of the mainstream thinking about a visual artist in Eastern culture seems to be that an artist has inherent value in that he or she expresses beauty. But much work may not be considered particularly beautiful. It may be comical or (to use a horribly overused term- “whimsical”) it can be serious, thought provoking, sarcastic, etc.

    Perhaps this is one way T.V. helps the others arts evolve. It has a much broader scope.

    One of the problems with the idea that art has value because of beauty is this in only one of the four major uses of art throughout time. The beautiful use of art may be found in any or all of the theories. The Mimetic theory (after the Platonic ideals) states that the purpose of art is simply to record what is seen in reality. When I think of this theory I imagine landscape realistic paintings, still life paintings, realistic portraiture or the school of photo realism. The Pragmatic theory of art states that the purpose of art is mainly to teach or inspire the viewer in some concept or idea. This type of art can be found in church murals, illustrations, propaganda posters, etc. The Romantic Theory of art asserts that the reason for art is to move people emotionally. Many of the work of the Romantic Landscape painters of the late 1990’s aspired to this idea.

    Thanks for the discussion.
    KATA

  • Pingback: Blundell gets on his soapbox. | LOS ALEXANDRA

  • Pingback: Some Love For The Box | Mar Borboa

  • Pingback: Why do we watch so much TV? – hugemane

  • That’s exactly the same that I wrote in one chapter of my thesis work. Thanks a lot for sharing.

  • Hey,

    Well, there are ample of reasons why I love television and the foremost is watching movies and getting news from around the world.

    And television is the best friend for the single people like me.

  • Seems to be very interesting

  • This is one of the most interesting essay titles I have ever come across. it is a very relevant topic today, bearing in mind that today a lot of people are already addicted to television. this is a topic that I would like to address in my blog giant essays since it is a topic that relates with the issues we are facing today.

  • You know, as a writer, I always like to search for something unusual, interesting and useful to read. And I wanted to thank you for creating this amazing place, where I can find anything I need. Keep it up!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *