Why is Television Seen as Being Uncultured?
During its short history, television has always been seen as an uncultured and uneducated medium, with nicknames such as the Idiot’s Lantern and Boob Tube reflecting the commonly held perception. Other forms of entertainment, such as books, movies and plays are seen as inherently superior and culturally elite, while TV is simply seen as mindless amusement for the unwashed masses.
However, fans of television know that there is quality to be found on the box. Depth, complex plotlines and embedded themes are increasingly becoming present in shows, particularly dramas. One only has to look at Bad Wolf in Doctor Who or the epic struggle of good and evil Carnivale to see that this is the case. The reality doesn’t match the perception, and I believe there are several reasons why this is so.
In fact, I believe it is this serialisation that really sets apart television as a medium. It is the season long story arcs and themes that now allow shows to have the extra depth and meaning that was absent in the past. I love the development of television in this way, and will continue to shout from the rooftops that TV is a cultured medium – if you don’t think so, you’re missing out on something great.
So, do you think there are other reasons that TV is viewed in this way? How can we go about changing the perception?
*Image courtesy of Wikipedia
**Image courtesy of the BBC
Carnivale featured various theological themes*
However, fans of television know that there is quality to be found on the box. Depth, complex plotlines and embedded themes are increasingly becoming present in shows, particularly dramas. One only has to look at Bad Wolf in Doctor Who or the epic struggle of good and evil Carnivale to see that this is the case. The reality doesn’t match the perception, and I believe there are several reasons why this is so.
Production Considerations
Budget
We live in a society were money is equated with quality, and TV shows do not have the gigantic budgets that movies are usually graced with. The fact is that, despite budget constraints, many shows are able to include wonderful writing, acting and special effects. A great example comes from the Doctor Who episode, New Earth. The Cat Nuns are some of the greatest prosthetic work I’ve ever seen, and can rival aliens from any big-budget flick.
Realism v Representation
Many culture snobs seem to believe that plays are superior to television because of their representative nature. A live performance that does not encompass complete realism must surely attract a more elite audience than television, where pre-recorded realism does not challenge the viewer’s imagination. In reality, television shows are just plays for the screen. They are elements of the same medium, and to argue that one is inherently superior to the other is doing both a disservice.
Specific Genres
Reality TV
The range of shows encompassed by this genre is too wide to be tarred with the same brush, so just to be clear I’m referring to Reality shows that make a strong case for eugenics. Showing humankind at its most repulsive and idiotic does not make a good case for the intelligence of television
Talkshows
Talkshows of the ‘you-my-baby-daddy’ variety are another culprit. It can be difficult to respect TV as a medium when these shows give a platform to the worst attention-seekers of the world.
Soap Operas
These shows, particularly the daytime assortment, have done little to help TV’s image. While they can be very entertaining in all their wig-ripping glory, they are hardly a bastion of deep and thought-provoking plotlines.
Nature of Television
In-home presence
For some reason, many people believe that an in-home medium cannot be as worthy as one which must be consumed by leaving the house. I certainly don’t believe this, accepting instead that television better fits the convenience nature that our time-poor society now craves in its products.
Serialisation
There is the perception that, because most dramas are serialised over a long period, the quality will drop over the length of the season. However, the majority of these shows continue to deliver compelling stories over the season.
Budget
Cat Nuns from Doctor Who**
We live in a society were money is equated with quality, and TV shows do not have the gigantic budgets that movies are usually graced with. The fact is that, despite budget constraints, many shows are able to include wonderful writing, acting and special effects. A great example comes from the Doctor Who episode, New Earth. The Cat Nuns are some of the greatest prosthetic work I’ve ever seen, and can rival aliens from any big-budget flick.
Realism v Representation
Many culture snobs seem to believe that plays are superior to television because of their representative nature. A live performance that does not encompass complete realism must surely attract a more elite audience than television, where pre-recorded realism does not challenge the viewer’s imagination. In reality, television shows are just plays for the screen. They are elements of the same medium, and to argue that one is inherently superior to the other is doing both a disservice.
Specific Genres
Reality TV
The range of shows encompassed by this genre is too wide to be tarred with the same brush, so just to be clear I’m referring to Reality shows that make a strong case for eugenics. Showing humankind at its most repulsive and idiotic does not make a good case for the intelligence of television
Talkshows
Talkshows of the ‘you-my-baby-daddy’ variety are another culprit. It can be difficult to respect TV as a medium when these shows give a platform to the worst attention-seekers of the world.
Soap Operas
These shows, particularly the daytime assortment, have done little to help TV’s image. While they can be very entertaining in all their wig-ripping glory, they are hardly a bastion of deep and thought-provoking plotlines.
Nature of Television
In-home presence
For some reason, many people believe that an in-home medium cannot be as worthy as one which must be consumed by leaving the house. I certainly don’t believe this, accepting instead that television better fits the convenience nature that our time-poor society now craves in its products.
Serialisation
There is the perception that, because most dramas are serialised over a long period, the quality will drop over the length of the season. However, the majority of these shows continue to deliver compelling stories over the season.
In fact, I believe it is this serialisation that really sets apart television as a medium. It is the season long story arcs and themes that now allow shows to have the extra depth and meaning that was absent in the past. I love the development of television in this way, and will continue to shout from the rooftops that TV is a cultured medium – if you don’t think so, you’re missing out on something great.
So, do you think there are other reasons that TV is viewed in this way? How can we go about changing the perception?
*Image courtesy of Wikipedia
**Image courtesy of the BBC
Lost Fanatic
Day Break TV
Of course, I'm including Lost in that class of excellent shows.
TV writers I'm sure would love to write complex serialized dramas or comedies that appeal to a higher echelon of people. But, what's the point when 35 million people are tuning into American Idol here in the US. It's ridiculous. The people that write about TV (us TV critics) know the real potential of TV as a massive medium in media. But, the majority of the viewing public see it as a shiny glowing box.
It's sad. But, I don't think TV's perception will ever change. There will always be Dateline specials about how kids are getting fat and stupid from the TV. But, if you look at it as a learning and thinking tool, rather than an idiot box to waste time in front of, then you'll get a lot more out of it.
Sadly with most people that will never ever happen.
Aaron.
Celebrity Obsession
I think that some perceptions are slowly starting to change. Even amongst actors, tv shows were the very poor cousins to movies. Now, more and more actors are moving across to tv. You'd hope that by securing a higher quality actor, that it will encourage higher quality shows.
And there are as many tacky and uncultured movies as there are tv shows. But that's not a bad thing. You need a variety of shows. Sometimes you want something that makes you think. Sometimes you just want to sit back, switch off your brain and laugh. That's not just tv, that includes movies, books and shows. Heck, I shelled out money to see Dude Where's My Car and Jackass at the cinema. And I was happy to do so, because I was in the mood for dumb slapstick humour. That was exactly what I got. And I was a happy girl.
Genghis Gal
And yet 20 to 1 keeps its primetime spot, as does Celebrity whatever the hell the Aussie g grade celeb Survivors are at the moment.
I believe that many of the most intelligent scripts have actually come from TV.
Carnivale - just sensational in so many ways.
Buffy - pop culture at its most cutting edge
Arrested Development & Curb Your Enthusiasm - 2 of the cleverest shows on TV yet not shown in prime time here
The Shield - one of the most confronting shows on TV along with OZ. Can't even remember who showed The Shield it was so irregular, and it took SBS five or so years to get around to showing Oz.
Maybe we need to rely on the ABC continuing to pursue programs like the West Wing and maybe take over some of the failed programs from the commercial stations.
Rugby World Cup 2007
This is without a doubt, one of the most intelligent pieces I have read on this subject. I can only nod in agreement to everything you state.
Must also agree with KylieW...sometimes mindless escapism isn't a bad thing. As for 'Lost'...the most frustrating, slow, so predictably unpredictable it's a cliche, show ever.
I can't wait for it to come back on.
It's not that TV is uncultured, it's what the Box Populi wants that creates the programming that leads to this.
The 'average person' just wants to switch off from the same ol', same ol' of life.
They don't want to have to solve problems, answer questions, mull over or be educated when they've been doing this all day. Or feel they have.
Home is no longer the First Place, it is now The Last Resort.
A place to switch off and switch on...Home is where the TV is.
I guess people think that thinking and being stimulated is a luxury or worse, a chore. They want to be mindlessly 'entertained'. Vicariously thrilled. No effort required.
Which is why soapies, serials, etc are described as "gripping drama", "must see TV", "Australia's #1 show", etc...and my favourite "blunt force drama"...oh hang on... that's "blunt force trauma".
Same thing.
Hmm...why are the CSI type shows so popular? Please let this not be for the education element...
You can't change perception when the level of snobbery just moves up a rung. We freely say we watch TV but we're all still snobby about what we watch.
So, I will rid myself of my hypocrisy and proudly proclaim; I watch 'Lost', 'The New Inventors', 'Spicks and Specks', 'The Glasshouse', 'Boston Legal' and...deep breath...'Greys Anatomy' and...deeeeep breath...'The Amazing Race'.
So shoot me.
Chatterpillar
For starters - a question. The commercial channels force-feed us so many American-made sit coms, soapies, reality shows, crime and other shows. Is that because they are marketed in such volume that they afford the channels a much greater profit margin?
The internet and TV are my media of choice and I've never been into opera and ballet, or live shows that much. I'm one of the "great unwashed" that's always either been a cinema goer or watched TV at home. Nowadays it's mainly watching TV, so thank goodness for SBS and ABC.
Oh, and nice to meet another Spicks and Specks fan!
However, some American shows are leading the way in shows with meaning and depth, so they definitely shouldn't be written off completely.
I think the overall point I'd like to make is that there shouldn't be any shame is saying that you are an avid TV watcher. It should be a medium with diversity, not just encompass one specific type of viewing.
Chatterpillar
Those are my two media of choice. I've seen the development of both since they started. TV used to have a host or hostess between shows telling us "the time is", often with a big clock in view too. In those days (the '60s) viewers converted en mass from weekly cinema goers - at a time when male-oriented westerns were all the go.
Nowadays I understand programming views the median viewer as a 14 year old female. No wonder I'm not attracted to a lot of what the programmers put forward for viewing.
It's great that male viewers nowadays can enjoy local sports casts instead of Westerns at the cinema like their grand-fathers did. But how serious is the threat that live viewing will be cornered by cable?
A major problem with skewing to demographics as I see it is that the groups are not homogenous. This is why no marketer would ever segment a market on demographic alone, yet the tv stations do it constantly.
Also, while I'm not an avid sports fan, I hope it doesn't end up disappearing from free-to-air. Whether it will is, at this stage, anybody's guess.
Chatterpillar
I'm hoping TV will become more appreciated for culture as more video journos get their DVDs accepted by channels.
I helped with background research to make a DVD called "Indiaquake". It was with a young friend who, after last October's big quake, got into the "no go" Indian side of Kashmir as a backpacker with a hidden cam. Got good footage from heaps of villagers whose "English" we dubbed. (Accents too thick.) After learning the software to edit it into a doco himself, he tried really hard to sell it to Discovery Channel, SBS and others. No luck. Any thoughts?
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
However, I'm pretty sick of the reality TV thing.
And even good shows become tiring after they extend the natural life of the plot beyond a couple of seasons. For example, Nip/Tuck. And, yes, Lost.
Lost seems to be one of those shows that polarises viewers. People either love it or loathe it. I'm still in the loving it camp, but I hope the show comes to its natural end and isn't drawn just for the sake of it.
I have a topic up I would love to see what your opinion about it is.
Aaron.
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Postmoderncritic:I think that's an excellent point. Most of the current literati are behind the current snobbery, but as time goes on the younger generations will hopefully take up the fight and get television the recognition it deserves.
why they think that though i believe it's just because it's common place, i mean who doesn't have a tv in their house now-a-days and so by calling tv uncultured they are just putting plays, books and movies on a higher pedestal or trying to promote others to partake in these different forms of entertainment.
The fact is that it is now more uncommon for people to want to partake in other forms of entertainment besides tv. I myself am an avid reader and watcher of tv however i've haven't gone out to watch a movie for at least half a year and i've never seen a professional play performed in my life. The effort and expense of these other forms of entertainment are what i believe make other people believe that they are superior to tv, also the fact that these forms are not as easily accessed as the tv gives them that so called higher appeal.
I sound sort of snobby myself here but i love tv honestly besides the sickening amount of law and order type shows (did you know because of these kind of shows more and more people want to become forensic scientists? unfortunately the real live crime scenes aren't so glamorous as they are on tv, nor do they take so little time to solve). i enjoy tv for both the serious shows and the silly ones and snobs probably do to, they just won't admit it.
interesting topic^.^