What's on TV?

[Argus]

[quote name='theloniusfleabag' date='Nov 10 2006, 02:44 PM' Jet Li

Almost everything produced for TV is designed around the idea that there'll be breaks

I don't think it is a misunderstanding, I think that this is where August1991 and myself, differ our opinions from yours. True, TV is designed around breaks, but it is more important (for the cable television market) for the ads to air than the shows.

Well yes, but so what? No doubt it was more important to the owner of the theatre that Shakespear's shows sell many tickets than that they represent the utmost in art. No doubt Dickens' publisher cared far more about sales than it ever did about the quality of his work. Commercialization has always required a certain level of compromise in anything made for a mass market. And that is most art.

The only art which doesn't have to compromise at all is art which is made purely for its own sake, as opposed to the need to sell it, and art made for big institutions, esp government, which don't care about how indecipherably unattractive and confusing it is.

[Argus]

Is there 'artistic and intelligent' porn? Perhaps somewhere, but advertisers and producers don't want to take a chance on it. They want what sells, now.

What exactly is "artistic and intelligent" porn? I mean, generally speaking we differentiate "porn" from "erotica" based on the quality of the work, do we not?

Porn is porn not because it's about sex or because it appeals to a wide audience but because it's done quickly, cheaply, and without much effort to be more than a quick masturbatory tool. It does not try to influence the mind. It has no ambitions for improving society or making people contemplate life's realities.

Erotica also appeals to a wide audience, but tends to be more artistically done, with more care, effort and style.

I suppose you could say TV is porn, but not all of it really meets the definition, even disregarding the sex theme.

[August1991]

Well yes, but so what? No doubt it was more important to the owner of the theatre that Shakespear's shows sell many tickets than that they represent the utmost in art. No doubt Dickens' publisher cared far more about sales than it ever did about the quality of his work. Commercialization has always required a certain level of compromise in anything made for a mass market. And that is most art.

Argus, all art is commercial since somebody has to pay the costs of production - that's not the issue.

The question is who pays and under what circumstances. To see a Shakespeare play, the theatre going public bought a ticket. Shakespeare wrote for them.

Anybody can watch TV and the people who pay are the advertisers. TV producers write for them. The viewing public possibly pays when it buys advertised products but the link is so tenuous as to be almost meaningless. It is not even the same as when a sovereign hired a composer to create an opera.

[Argus]

Well yes, but so what? No doubt it was more important to the owner of the theatre that Shakespear's shows sell many tickets than that they represent the utmost in art. No doubt Dickens' publisher cared far more about sales than it ever did about the quality of his work. Commercialization has always required a certain level of compromise in anything made for a mass market. And that is most art.

Argus, all art is commercial since somebody has to pay the costs of production - that's not the issue.

The question is who pays and under what circumstances. To see a Shakespeare play, the theatre going public bought a ticket. Shakespeare wrote for them.

Anybody can watch TV and the people who pay are the advertisers. TV producers write for them. The viewing public possibly pays when it buys advertised products but the link is so tenuous as to be almost meaningless. It is not even the same as when a sovereign hired a composer to create an opera.

And so?

How does this affect anything? In either case the product had to be appreciated by a mass of people.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Often times I thought it would be more elevating to hit myself over the head with a brick than read through some of the stuff I had to read in Lit class, but I still realize that the fact that I didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't "art". Maybe someday when you've grown up a little and realized the same we can continue.

Indeed, I took English 200 at the University of Calgary, and while Chaucer was good for some chuckles, I really didn't care for the bulk of it. I suppose the problem lies with the definition of 'art'. It is far too broad, in my opinion, and I generally equate tv as akin to the Mexican guy who had seven vials of his own masturbatory spunk in a wheelbarrow (who was given money by the Banff Centre for the Arts).

Argus,

The only art which doesn't have to compromise at all is art which is made purely for its own sake

I suppose that this is the only true 'art', for even Bill Waterston or Berkely Breathed likely started drawing for their own amusement, and their friends told them "Hey, this is great, you should try to sell it." Does selling it make it stop being 'art'? Not really, but it starts having a different purpose.

It does not try to influence the mind. It has no ambitions for improving society or making people contemplate life's realities.

This is why I don't consider tv to be 'art'.

It has no ambitions for improving society or making people contemplate life's realities.

, but it does try to influence the mind, and it's ambition is to sell product. Whomever creates the most palatable filler between ads gets the most money.

[cybercoma]

I get the feeling Argus would appreciate Dr. House.

[kimmy]

Often times I thought it would be more elevating to hit myself over the head with a brick than read through some of the stuff I had to read in Lit class, but I still realize that the fact that I didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't "art". Maybe someday when you've grown up a little and realized the same we can continue.

Indeed, I took English 200 at the University of Calgary, and while Chaucer was good for some chuckles, I really didn't care for the bulk of it. I suppose the problem lies with the definition of 'art'. It is far too broad, in my opinion, and I generally equate tv as akin to the Mexican guy who had seven vials of his own masturbatory spunk in a wheelbarrow (who was given money by the Banff Centre for the Arts).

What? Why on earth would you equate TV with THAT?

If anything, if one is comparing TV to the "fine arts", I'd say the criticism lies in most TV being too far the opposite direction. I'd say weird experimental euro-films that run at arty festivals are more like the Mexican ... wanker; too "hip" or "edgy" or "high concept" for anybody to find any enjoyment in. TV, on the other hand, would be more like the dude who makes genuine oil paintings at the shopping mall. Yep, they're real paintings, and yep, they look nice... all the grannies stop and say "Now *that's* a nice painting... not like that Voice of Fire crap that the government spent 3 million dollars on." But they all look pretty much the same. Autumn sunset in a mountain valley. Or, sometimes, dawn in a mountain valley. Sometimes, it's mid-day, and hhe changes it up by putting pine trees instead of poplars. The dude churns out 10+ of the things each day, and nothing about any of them is unique or inventive. But put one next to a Van Gogh, and the grannies would pick the shopping mall painting to put in their living room, because it looks "nice", and the Van Gogh is all "sloppy" and "looks like a kid painted it."

That's TV.

The only art which doesn't have to compromise at all is art which is made purely for its own sake

I suppose that this is the only true 'art', for even Bill Waterston or Berkely Breathed likely started drawing for their own amusement, and their friends told them "Hey, this is great, you should try to sell it." Does selling it make it stop being 'art'? Not really, but it starts having a different purpose.

I don't get it. It becomes compromised when it starts becoming commercially viable?

Incidently, this is somewhat the opposite of August's view that seeks to link artistic merit to market value. If The difference between Bill Watterson's friends were seeing his 4-panel comics for free and laughing their asses off, compared to Watterson selling the strips to newspapers to become part of the collection of content that readers pay $1 a day for, compared to a consumer shelling out $20 for a paperback compendium of his comics? Beats me. This whole discussion about why the business model is so linked to the artistic merit of the material somewhat escapes me.

William Shakespeare was the Jerry Bruckheimer of his day, wasn't he? His plays were written expressly with the intention of finding mass audiences at the theatres of the time, yes? Hundreds of years later, his plays are still regarded as among the most significant works of English-language literature, aren't they?

If I recall, Richard Wagner was mostly concerned with getting laid and getting paid. Does that have any impact on our views of his operas or his symphonies?

It does not try to influence the mind. It has no ambitions for improving society or making people contemplate life's realities.

This is why I don't consider tv to be 'art'.

If influencing the mind, improving society, or making people contemplate life are viewed to be components of art, then where would that leave something like, say, an abstract painting or a piece of instrumental music?

Is a Mozart instrumental "art"? Most people would probably say so... but it doesn't contain any thoughts or ideas. It might evoke a mood, might cause the listener some emotional response, but it doesn't have any social or philosophical ambitions.

but it does try to influence the mind, and it's ambition is to sell product. Whomever creates the most palatable filler between ads gets the most money.

Doesn't the act of creating something that people find to be palatable in itself constitute "art"? Again, is this any different from Shakespeare creating palatable ways of liberating sheckles from the pockets of Londoners?

I get the feeling Argus would appreciate Dr. House.

-k

[August1991]

The only art which doesn't have to compromise at all is art which is made purely for its own sake

I suppose that this is the only true 'art', for even Bill Waterston or Berkely Breathed likely started drawing for their own amusement, and their friends told them "Hey, this is great, you should try to sell it." Does selling it make it stop being 'art'? Not really, but it starts having a different purpose.

I don't get it. It becomes compromised when it starts becoming commercially viable?

Incidently, this is somewhat the opposite of August's view that seeks to link artistic merit to market value.

Bear with me here because I'm making this up as I go along.

My point was that advertisers pay for TV shows and advertisers are not the ultimate consumer. Heck, advertisers have no discerning artistic taste at all. They just want eyes glued to screens.

When the purchaser and the consumer are two different people, the result is rarely satisfactory and artistic is not the word I would use to decribe it. That rule applies to Christmas gifts, government spending and TV shows.

I'll go a little further. Artists live for approval. Anyone working in TV knows perfectly well that a sponsor has hired them to attract attention to sell an unrelated product.

William Shakespeare was the Jerry Bruckheimer of his day, wasn't he? His plays were written expressly with the intention of finding mass audiences at the theatres of the time, yes? Hundreds of years later, his plays are still regarded as among the most significant works of English-language literature, aren't they?

Shakespeare was one of only many playwrights in early 17th century Europe and it's questionable whether he was considered successful at the time. His anonymity implies he was not.

IOW, it is hard to say what artistic creation from our own era will keep the attention of people in the year 2306. It could be Jerry Bruckheimer movies but I somehow doubt it.

If you had asked someone in 1920s England who was the greatest living author, chances are the reply would be Arnold Bennett. He's largely unknown now but Somerset Maugham is still available in bookstores. If you haven't seen Amadeus, I suggest you rent it. That's one of the points of the story.

----

And, uh, what or who is Dr. House and how is it connected to Argus? Google/wikipedia inform me that Dr. House is a dramatic TV programme based on a medical doctor. (This is new?)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Dr. House is a dramatic TV programme based on a medical doctor. (This is new?)

Evidently Hugh Laurie pretends to be a mean-spirited doctor on this show. I recall Hugh Laurie from the brilliant comedy series "Black Adder", where he pretended to be an outrageously moronic fop, as opposed to Rowan Atkinson and his vitriolic sardonicism.

[kimmy]

Bear with me here because I'm making this up as I go along.

My point was that advertisers pay for TV shows and advertisers are not the ultimate consumer. Heck, advertisers have no discerning artistic taste at all. They just want eyes glued to screens.

When the purchaser and the consumer are two different people, the result is rarely satisfactory and artistic is not the word I would use to decribe it. That rule applies to Christmas gifts, government spending and TV shows.

I'll go a little further. Artists live for approval. Anyone working in TV knows perfectly well that a sponsor has hired them to attract attention to sell an unrelated product.

Advertisers don't buy TV shows. The networks buy TV shows. They do so based on their anticipation of audience tastes. "How many people would people watch this?" and "Which people would watch this?" In this sense, your analogy to Christmas shopping or government programs is a good one.

However, unlike either of those situations, the network has quick and accurate metrics to determine whether the "present" they bought for their audience was well received. And unlike either of those situations, the network has a financial stake in the result. The network isn't selling a program to advertisers, they're selling eyeballs. If the show they've purchased fails to attract a sufficient viewership, they can't charge as much money for their ads.

A further note on this train of thought: couldn't it equally be applied to any commercial enterprise, artistic or otherwise? If you're making a movie, you're spending a bunch of money in the anticipation that there'll be an audience that wants to see the end result. Or a play, or a painting, or an opera, or the 2007 Dodge Nitro.

Like a TV program that a network airs that fails to connect with an audience, just about anything else you care to name is created and invested in before its market is proven to exist.

Shakespeare was one of only many playwrights in early 17th century Europe and it's questionable whether he was considered successful at the time. His anonymity implies he was not.

The wikipedia page on Shakespeare suggests that while he was not regarded as highly as he later came to be, he was hardly anonymous:

By 1592, Shakespeare was a playwright in London; he had enough of a reputation for Robert Greene to denounce him as "an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey." (The italicised line parodies the phrase, "Oh, tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide" which Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI, part 3.)

Shakespeare's reputation has grown considerably since his own time. During his lifetime and shortly after his death, Shakespeare was well-regarded but not considered the supreme poet of his age. He was included in some contemporary lists of leading poets, but he lacked the stature of Edmund Spenser or Philip Sidney.

At any rate, I do agree with the premise that what is popular at the moment might not be what stands the "test of time". One needn't go back centuries to find examples of that fact.

IOW, it is hard to say what artistic creation from our own era will keep the attention of people in the year 2306. It could be Jerry Bruckheimer movies but I somehow doubt it.

I mentioned Bruckheimer not because of his movies, but because his TV productions are, at present, the most commercially successful in the medium.

I wasn't aware that Shakespeare wasn't considered commercially successful in his time; I had assumed he was. But is that the point? He undoubtedly wrote his plays with the notion that they'd be playing to large audiences... as part owner of a theatre company, he had a financial stake in doing so.

If you had asked someone in 1920s England who was the greatest living author, chances are the reply would be Arnold Bennett. He's largely unknown now but Somerset Maugham is still available in bookstores. If you haven't seen Amadeus, I suggest you rent it. That's one of the points of the story.

I will have to make a point of seeing that.

And, uh, what or who is Dr. House and how is it connected to Argus? Google/wikipedia inform me that Dr. House is a dramatic TV programme based on a medical doctor. (This is new?)

House is a TV program about a medical doctor, yes. Dr House's most notable characteristic, though, is his misanthropic view of people in general, and that he is (to put it charitably) a curmudgeon, which I suspect is why cybercoma thought Argus might relate to him.

-k

[Argus]

I get the feeling Argus would appreciate Dr. House.

He has a certain arrogance which can be admirable.

[Argus]

Dear August1991,

Dr. House is a dramatic TV programme based on a medical doctor. (This is new?)

Evidently Hugh Laurie pretends to be a mean-spirited doctor on this show. I recall Hugh Laurie from the brilliant comedy series "Black Adder", where he pretended to be an outrageously moronic fop, as opposed to Rowan Atkinson and his vitriolic sardonicism.

I did a search on vitriolic sardonicism and this is the only occasion the term has been used in the history of MapleLeaf forums.

Congratulations.

[August1991]

Advertisers don't buy TV shows. The networks buy TV shows. They do so based on their anticipation of audience tastes. "How many people would people watch this?" and "Which people would watch this?" In this sense, your analogy to Christmas shopping or government programs is a good one.

However, unlike either of those situations, the network has quick and accurate metrics to determine whether the "present" they bought for their audience was well received. And unlike either of those situations, the network has a financial stake in the result. The network isn't selling a program to advertisers, they're selling eyeballs. If the show they've purchased fails to attract a sufficient viewership, they can't charge as much money for their ads.

A further note on this train of thought: couldn't it equally be applied to any commercial enterprise, artistic or otherwise? If you're making a movie, you're spending a bunch of money in the anticipation that there'll be an audience that wants to see the end result. Or a play, or a painting, or an opera, or the 2007 Dodge Nitro.

Like a TV program that a network airs that fails to connect with an audience, just about anything else you care to name is created and invested in before its market is proven to exist.

I'm making the argument, perhaps specious, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I'm adding the argument that artists need genuine encouragement to create art. And I'm finishing with the argument that genuine encouragement requires something on the part of the audience other than merely their time.

I understand that networks buy the shows but they do that with the intention of selling them to advertisers. You mention "quick and accurate metrics" but in fact they're not. The polling is little better than an election. When it comes to a collective decision, nothing beats individuals pulling out cash from their wallets.

So, here's what I mean. A TV producer works once or twice removed from direct feedback. (Let me give a another analogy. Writers of school textbooks don't write for students, they don't even write for teachers, they write for school board bureaucrats who will choose to adopt the textbook. Admittedly, if students don't like the book, eventually the bureaucrats will get the message. But this process is long and convoluted.)

I'm inclined to believe that a discerning dictator is a good art patron but I don't know what a discerning dictator is.

A priori, I wouldn't dismiss TV shows. It's just that IME, it's lousy. I'll admit that American TV is the best of the lot. (TV elsewhere in the world is unbelievably horrible and amateurish. At least Americans have mastered the technique of TV.)

I wonder whether it's the medium. TV is too disposable. It's too easy to shoot video. A 35 mm film cartridge contains about 10 minutes of film and so filmmakers take time to think about what they're doing.

I'm intrigued about the straight-to-DVD phenomenon, buying/renting TV serials on DVD, satellite/cable and widescreen TVs. I wonder whether this will offer sufficient revenues to change the way TV art is produced.

The art an era leaves to the future is the art the era's patrons choose to have produced. Since advertisers chose late 20th century TV art, and then offered it for free while truly seeking something else, I'm not confident that the art is other than the equivalent of the Yellow Pages or a 19th century Almanac.

[kimmy]

I'm making the argument, perhaps specious, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I'm adding the argument that artists need genuine encouragement to create art. And I'm finishing with the argument that genuine argument requires something on the part of the audience other than merely their time.

I understand that networks buy the shows but they do that with the intention of selling them to advertisers. You mention "quick and accurate metrics" but in fact they're not. The polling is little better than an election. When it comes to a collective decision, nothing beats individuals pulling out cash from their wallets.

The extent to which they're "quick and accurate" is debatable only to the extent that you wish to dicker on the definition of accurate.

They're undeniably quick. Perhaps the Nielsen ratings are not accurate to the degree of precision that ballots or sales receipts are, but these are large sample, scientifically conducted samples that are considered to have a good statistical accuracy. As with any kind of polling, the methodology isn't perfect, but it's probably a better and more consistent poll with less room for bias than typical political polls.

The Nielsen ratings may not be accurate enough to tell which show is Stephane Dion and which is Gerald Kennedy, but it's accurate enough to determine which shows are Stephane Dion and which are Joe Volpe. And certainly accurate enough to determine which shows are Michael Ignatieff and which are Hedy Fry.

And this is what makes money for the network. They can demand premium rates for shows that receive a "Michael Ignatieff" response from viewers. They can charge good rates for "Stephane Dion" and "Gerald Kennedy" shows. They probably have to give discounts to advertisers for "Joe Volpe" programming. And "Hedy Fry" programs cost the network a lot of money, because they're going to have to give their advertisers refunds for advertising in that time slot.

The art an era leaves to the future is the art the era's patrons choose to have produced. Since advertisers chose late 20th century TV art, and then offered it for free while truly seeking something else, I'm not confident that the art is other than the equivalent of the Yellow Pages or a 19th century Almanac.

(taken out of sequence, but I'll address it here.)

I still can't figure out why you and T-bag keep repeating that the advertisers decide what's on, but you're wrong. They don't. The viewers do, through the mechanism of the Nielsen ratings. The networks make this decision based on their financial self-interest, as detailed above, based on the desires of the viewing public as measured by large-scale polling research.

The mechanism by which they get paid might be different, but networks decide what to put in their programming slots in the same way that supermarkets decide what to put on their shelves.

So, here's what I mean. A TV producer works once or twice removed from direct feedback. (Let me give a another analogy. Writers of school textbooks don't write for students, they don't even write for teachers, they write for school board bureaucrats who will choose to adopt the textbook. Admittedly, if students don't like the book, eventually the bureaucrats will get the message. But this process is long and convoluted.)

I'm inclined to believe that a discerning dictator is a good art patron but I don't know what a discerning dictator is.

Are you saying TV producers are like dictators? It's just the opposite. The whole TV industry is a huge exercise in democracy.

Unlike the crappy textbook or a badly thought out government program, a TV program that misses the mark will be gone from the TV in a matter of weeks.

TV programs are like political candidates, and the viewers vote with their remote controls. Like a political candidate, a tv producer comes up with a premise that he hopes will appeal to the voters... and they ultimately "elect" the program they choose.

And, as with governments, people usually get the TV they deserve, which is often a disappointing outcome.

A priori, I wouldn't dismiss TV shows. It's just that IME, it's lousy. I'll admit that American TV is the best of the lot. (TV elsewhere in the world is unbelievably horrible and amateurish. At least Americans have mastered the technique of TV.)

I wonder whether it's the medium. TV is too disposable. It's too easy to shoot video. A 35 mm film cartridge contains about 10 minutes of film and so filmmakers take time to think about what they're doing.

I'm intrigued about the straight-to-DVD phenomenon, buying/renting TV serials on DVD, satellite/cable and widescreen TVs. I wonder whether this will offer sufficient revenues to change the way TV art is produced.

It's not easy or cheap to make a TV show. It's a multi-million dollar investment. Even cheap-to-produce "reality tv" shows cost a considerable chunk of money to put together. It's like any other business venture-- a big investment that's more likely to fail than succeed. A producer doesn't risk money and effort because it's cheap or easy to do so. They do it because the financial rewards of a successful series are considerable, and because they believe that they've come up with a product that can beat the odds (or, perhaps, because they've got a clever accountant who can turn it into a good write-off if it fails...)

As for whether TV is "good", it's certainly not my contention that it's high art. This whole discussion started off as a tiff between Argus and myself over whether present-day TV is worse than it was back in the "good old days", and my contention was not so much that what's on TV right now is great, but rather that the shows of yesterday were by and large really crappy.

I do believe television is an art medium, but how much of what's on TV at any given moment is *good* art, or art at all, is quite debateable.

-k

[Black Dog]

I do believe television is an art medium, but how much of what's on TV at any given moment is *good* art, or art at all, is quite debateable.

I'll say.

[theloniusfleabag]

After reading the list from Black Dog's link, I can only think to say...)))blaaarrrrrrrgh(((

Which is a bit odd, because I have not heard of most of them, and have seen only bits of one of the CSI shows (my wife likes one of them and watches it a couple of times a month, it is the one with the guy who pretended to be a 'profiler' in the movie "Manhunter", based on the book Red Dragon by Thomas Harris.)

No wonder America is the moral toilet it has become. The 'Nielson Ratings' aren't much more than a dipstick, to see how far the sh*t has risen up the plunger. Just my opinion, of course.

[August1991]

I still can't figure out why you and T-bag keep repeating that the advertisers decide what's on, but you're wrong. They don't. The viewers do, through the mechanism of the Nielsen ratings.

The following article is interesting:

A study conducted by Harris Interactive suggests that the television industry's obsession with youth is backfiring.

Nearly two-thirds of people in the United States say they believe that most TV programming and advertising is targeted toward people under 40, the survey said. More than 80 per cent of adults over 40 say they have a hard time finding TV shows that reflect their lives.

...

To a certain extent, the generation that decades ago warned against trusting people over 30 can blame itself for the predicament. The TV industry's slavish devotion to ratings within the 18-to-49-year-old demographic started when most baby boomers fit into that group.

The theory among advertisers is that it's important to reach young people as their preferences are forming — get them hooked on a certain toothpaste or soda early and they'll be hooked for life. Advertisers will pay a premium for young viewers: $335 (U.S.) for every thousand people in the 18-to-24 age range that a network delivers, for example. Viewers aged 55-to-64 are worth only $119 for every thousand, according to Nielsen Media Research.

That's why ABC and NBC conduct all of their business with advertisers in the 18-to-49 demo. From a financial standpoint, if you're 50 or over, you mean nothing to those networks' executives. For Fox, the CW, MTV, BET and countless other networks, even 40 is too old.

G & M

I quote it at length to show that advertising drives TV. In this case, it is the youth audience that advertisers seek since younger people have yet to decide which brand to use (and they'll also live longer). There is no point in aiming advertising at a 50 year old who won't change brands and is likely to die soon anyway when there is a 20 year old who thinks everything is new and will live for several decades more.

With that said, TV advertising is still a very blunt instrument. Those stats are very rough and inaccurate.

As for whether TV is "good", it's certainly not my contention that it's high art. This whole discussion started off as a tiff between Argus and myself over whether present-day TV is worse than it was back in the "good old days", and my contention was not so much that what's on TV right now is great, but rather that the shows of yesterday were by and large really crappy.

I do believe television is an art medium, but how much of what's on TV at any given moment is *good* art, or art at all, is quite debateable.

As Andy Warhol showed, even a soup label is art. But TV is art in the sense that an advertisng flyer is art. Some of Toulouse-Lautrec's advertising posters have become "art" but I think they are the exception.

It seems to me that when someone has to pay money for entertainment (instead of paying money to send a message in such a blunt manner as TV advertising), there's more chance that the result will be "art".