Television is considered a "medium."

[Bomby]

This is due to the fact that it is neither rare nor is it well done.

[CaptHayfever]

Clever. Except somebody beat you to the pun, but with the opposite intent:

Well-Done Medium Not Rare
Opinion by >> [Al Hayfever]

“Theatre is life; film is art; television is furniture.” I have no idea who said that, but it’s wrong. That’s tantamount to if I said something idiotic like, “Photography is life; painting is art; sculpture is furniture.” Here’s the truth: Television is miniature film; film is prerecorded theatre; theatre is art.

"But, [Al],” and I sigh with frustration as hypothetical-elitist-snob-reader chimes in, “how can you find any value in television? It has commercials/reality shows/dumb sitcoms/shallow dramas/countless ripoffs/biased news/edited movies and/or is numbing our children’s minds/desensitizing society to violence/insert another repetitive straw man argument here!”

I’m not going to argue against such claims, because to be perfectly honest, the claims are true. Such claims are also true for film and for theatre…and for photography, painting, & sculpture…and for poetry, books, magazines, newspapers, music, dance, video games, the Internet, & any other medium you can or can’t think of. As stated by Sturgeon’s Law, “Ninety percent of everything is crud.” The biggest difference between TV and the others is ease of distribution. It’s a farther walk to the morning paper than it is to the telly, and once you turn on the set, there’s anywhere from 5 to 500 stations all instantly accessible and chock full of nuts. No one knew about Manos: the Hands of Fate because no one went looking for it; The Swan, on the other hand, came looking for us. Still, avoiding the drek is as simple as flipping the channel to something better (Before you ask, there’s ALWAYS something on better than The Swan).

What’s more, the artistic landscape always looks bleakest in the moment. I guarantee that 30 years from now, no one will remember The Moment of Truth, just like they won’t remember White Chicks or any new play that closes on opening night. The only reason they’ll remember Survivor is that it will still be running. The works that last are the ones that are phenomenally good, phenomenally successful, or just inherently phenomenal; the cream rises to the top of our collective cultural memory. That’s why people remember the “golden days” of Hollywood or Broadway as better than they are, because they’ve long forgotten all the terrible films and plays. The same holds true for television; we ultimately remember only shows worth remembering.

The thing that’s really ticking me off, though, is that the hypo-snob-reader got all worked up over my correctly identifying TV as a legitimate medium for art, causing said reader to completely miss the part about theatre. We who live lives of the stage do often have a hard time remembering that there’s life beyond it, but that’s not what “theatre is life” means. It’s also not a Shakespeare “all the world’s a stage” reference. Playwrights & directors, critics & historians, they all credit drama as being inherently more real than other media. Stuff and nonsense. Theatre is an art, and art reflects life, just as life reflects art. Each is necessary for the other; I will defend that belief to my grave, but they are not identical. Theatre is art; film is art; television is art. Good night, Gracie; tomorrow is another day, and Robin shall restore amends.

~The Monitor Volume 14, Issue 1, 4/11/08
Originally written in Spring 2007. An earlier draft appears in my "Essays" thread in the Art/Lit/Writing forum.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Bomby]

Actually, I first heard the pun in a documentary from the early 1990's that we watched in my intro to mass media class. So you were also beaten to the punch.

And I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with your dismissal of film as being "prerecorded theatre." In fact, I'm a bit offended by the notion.

[CaptHayfever]

Who said it was a dismissal? Recheck the last paragraph; the equivalancy means that all 3 are art.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Bomby]

But by claiming that film is simply "prerecorded theatre," you're leaving out the entire photographic aspect of it. Perhaps from an actor's point of view it is, but the creators of film, those of us behind the camera, know that film and theatre are two very separate art forms.

[CaptHayfever]

True, yet both are governed by the same guiding principles. I'm no strict classicist like Aristotle was, but he had it right about the 6 elements of drama: Plot, Character, Theme, Speech, Spectacle, Song.

As far as I've discerned, working on both sides of both curtain & camera, the only important difference between stage & screen is how Spectacle is (or can be) approached. In other words, the physical constraints of live performance vs. the technological constraints of photography.

And you still recognize that both are (or can be) valid art forms, so now I'm going to revert back to my point: Why isn't television?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Bomby]

My problem with your stance on cinema is that you're making the assumption that cinema = narrative film. You're forgetting documentary, art film, experimental film, surrealist film, etc. Film began not as a continuation of theatre, but as photography attempting to capture motion. Early films made by Edison and the Lumiere brothers were not narrative at all, and instead attempted to capture mundane everyday events. It wasn't until Edwin S. Porter's Life of an American Fireman in 1903 that narrative film was introduced.

While popular cinema is almost entirely narrative nowadays, try making a film like Wong Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love or Jacques Tati's Play Time into a stage production. Many directors who are concerned with the art of film itself, and not surface aspect like story and stars, employ a technique known as Parametric Narration, in which the narrative serves the style, rather than vice versa.

My purpose of this topic wasn't to say that television isn't art. It's basically the same as cinema, except with the constant interruption of commercials and it's almost always in serial format. My purpose of this topic was to comment on how very few television programs are well done.

[CaptHayfever]

And you're making the assumption that theatre = narrative plays, forgetting experimental theatre, surrealist theatre, etc, concepts which, coincidentally, had their big "ism" movements simultaneously with their cinematic (as well as their visual & literary) counterparts. The Surrealist manifesto included everything except music, which was only excluded because Andre Breton was a twit who didn't realize jazz was perfectly satisfying his edicts on automatism & he didn't live to see psychedelia.
...I'm actually not too keen on manifestos in general.

A mundane, everyday event is still Plot. Even intentionally avoiding a lowercase plot is uppercase Plot; I know that one from firsthand experience as a playwright.

Speaking of narrative (that is, Plot/Character/Theme) serving style (that is, Speech/Spectacle/Song): What did you think of Across the Universe? I liked it. Taymor's been doing that her whole career. Of course, she studied basically every form of theatre in this history of South, East, & Southeast Asia, where narrative-serving-style is a millenia-old idea.

The way you phrase that, it sounds like you have an issue with the very concept of a serial. Anyways, the reason I reacted like that in the first place was that the phrasing in the first post appeared to state that NO television shows are well-done.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Bomby]

I guess the way you put that works quite well. I'm not very keen on theatre, and I made the very mistake that I accused you of making. In that respect, I have gained a greater respect for your argument.

I still haven't gotten around to seeing Across the Universe, but I have a week left of free rentals at work, and at the rate I've been watching movies lately, I should get around to seeing it quite soon.

[CaptHayfever]

And I hope I didn't misrepresent myself too badly; my intent all along was not to degrade film, but rather to deflate the egos of "television is furniture" & "theatre is life" people.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"