A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Thursday, January 07, 2016
Television as an Art Form, for Comm 138A
Is television an art form or a commercial venture? Why?
22 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The reading defines art in a number of ways but foremost as a way to understand and describe the universe and our place in it. In this sense, the content shown on television is definitely an art. But it's also a business. A show, no matter how creative or poignant, will not survive without advertisers. Television itself is a medium and a business that like any other business would not survive without funding. If there are no viewers, there are no advertisers/sponsors. The content shown through television is definitely an art. Television shows involve a collaboration of artists and art forms. I think streaming platforms are encouraging more artistic television ventures because funding is less volatile. Art is life. Be yourself.
In "Film as an Art," a few characteristics of all art are laid out. In order to classify something as art, one must look at the relationship between the work, the artist, and the observer, examine it from the point of view of production in comparison to the POV of construction, look at the psychological effects, and acknowledge that all art is a product with the intent to make money. Much of the article "The Language of Film: Signs and Syntax" compares the language of movies to the language of literature. I believe it's safe to say that most literature is considered art, so if literature and film are comparable in the terms we can used to describe both of them, does that, in turn, also make film an art? One specific topic in the article that led me to believe film is art was the discussion of the three orders of cinematic signs: icon, index, and symbol. These take single scenes or single frames and identify the subtext (if any) of that frame. Pictures are more widely considered art than films and TV, but aren't films and TV just a bajillion different pictures put together? In this context, I believe that television is an art form. However, "Art" and "Commercial Venture" are not mutually exclusive terms. In the essay "Film as an Art," it is mentioned that all arts are inherently economic products. If film and TV are an art, this means they must also be commercial ventures in some way. While TV cannot be art without being a commercial venture, it can be a commercial venture without being art. For example, it is difficult to compare the intended audience and reception when looking at "Teen Mom" and "30 Rock." One is an unscripted reality television series following the lives of teen mothers, while the other is a crafted sitcom with a whole production team, script writers, lighting crew, prop teams, costuming, etc. Should "Teen Mom" be considered under the television "art" umbrella? Sure, it's entertaining to some, but who would the creator of the show be? Who is the artist? Are the story editors the artists? The teens themselves, as (you assume) they technically create the scripts? I believe that "Teen Mom" is to TV what Bernett Newman is to painters and, quite frankly, I consider neither of them art (http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/ check out this link if you don't know what I'm talking about). Though I'm sure some people WOULD consider both of those things art. So perhaps, as with most things, we must realize that art and things that we like to consider high-order entertainment are subjective. I do believe all of it is a commercial venture. That's just a part of being art.
I think that TV is an art. TV also happens to create large amounts of money, but I think that first and foremost, TV exists to be consumed by the viewer just as other forms of art are. This is mostly because I have always thought that anything involving film is automatically considered art (I’m very stubborn) and partly because of what we read about for today. As mentioned in “Film as Art,” the triangle of the artist experience shows the relationship between the artist, the production, the work, consumption, and the observer. This triangle shows how and why art gets produced and consumed. It can be argued that art is created because of feedback from observers, or because of the money it generates, but it also can be argued that art starts from the artist “for arts sake.” I like the idea of “art for arts sake” much better. TV also requires lots of technicalities, details, and very intentional choices on how to tell the story that a show is trying to tell. “The Language of Film” article explains these in great detail, and I think that the complexity of the process adds to TV’s artistic value. Although reality TV shows have garbage content, they are still filmed in such a way that a dramatic story is told, and the shots used are intentional in order to make a statement about what “reality” actually is. The idea of reality TV shows being art is something that makes me uncomfortable, but I definitely think that the process of their creation is inherently artistic and that should be taken into account.
TV is art, but because TV is art, does that mean that it cannot also be commercial? No. According to "Film as an Art," all art is a product with the explicit intent to make some sort of dollar value for your work. In order to classify the art, first and foremost, one has to look at the relationship between the work, the artist, and the observer. From there, one must examine it from the POV of construction compared to the the production, and look at psychological effects. When discussing this article with Tori Sanford, she asked me the question, "does that mean The Jersey Shore is art?" This is something I had never thought of before, but after reading the article I believe that yes, even the tawdry show The Jersey Shore is a form of art. When looking at the relationship between the artist and the work, we can observe theories of the production of art, while when looking at the relationship between the work and the observer, we see theories of consumption. Basically, depending on the ways in which we approach the artistic experience, we will have two different experiences: art vs. consumption. The article does point out that inherently, art is made for economic products and "as such must eventually be considered in economic terms." When reading this I immediately think of the films that are nominated for Oscar's such as Carol or Room being made as art for art's sake and not as much for the monetary gain compared to blockbusters such as The Avengers and Jurassic World. I, personally do see both as a depiction of art but one is art for art's sake and the other is art for profit.
The question you pose is an interesting one because I think it points towards what we want television to be rather than what it is. I think we want to think of it as an art with no ulterior motive other than to creatively express society, animation, fantasy and many other mediums in various ways. As “Film as an Art” put it, the ancients used their forms of entertainment to make sense of the world around them, before commercial ventures even had a place in society. So although we do see television and film as an art form, we cannot deny that it is fueled by and funded by advertisement companies and larger corporations. Without these things, TV wouldn’t thrive as much as it does today. With money, TV shows are able to make more meaningful “art” that align with what the greater public is wanting to see. The “Language of Film” also introduces how humans learn to understand visual images from TV before learning to speak. We cannot deny something that is universally understood across hundreds of languages and cultures. Of course people can be more literate than others in the world of TV and art, but from my experiences and what I’ve gathered from these readings, I see television as an art before I see it as a commercial venture.
I believe that to look at television as an art form does not mean that it cannot also be a commercial venture. Although they are not one in the same and they are both motivated by different things, when it comes to television I can see where they share a relationship. The reading "Film As An Art" took us along the path of explaining all the different arts and what the characteristics are and then also how those relate and differ when it comes to television. With that reading, it would be hard to argue that television is not an art. There is thought and creativity and a lot of time that goes into these productions in order for the consumption to be at a high level. Today we look at television and the industry as a means to making a lot of profit. That seems to be the focus, "who had to highest paying blockbuster film?". But that really is just the one side of the triangle per say. Although most products are made for "economic terms" and that the intent is to make money, that does not take the art side out of the picture. If anything if can become a larger and more important aspect in the production process because the better the artistic value of the product the better it will look to the observers. There is this almost give and take relationship. I do believe that art has changed and what we look at now that we consider as art has revolutionized from the beginning of art though. Today's art can be looked at as something like special effects. The article explains how art changes over time and I think that it changes in order to keep up with the times and to keep observers interested.There are many different arts and in order to put together a film or television show one would need to carry that artistic touch and mindset to the production, the motivation may be the dollar signs but it does not take away from the artistic value that goes into creating it.
While I do believe that television can definitely be viewed as a commercial venture, after reading "Film as an Art," it would be a disservice to not recognize television as an art form. Pictorial and literary arts dominated the scene for nearly 7,000 years. However, the emergence of recording media was extremely significant and led to the expansion of what art can be. When considering performance, representational and recording arts, a common theme between all of these art forms is that an artist produces the work and an observer consumes the work. I would argue that more than most other mediums, television is extremely useful in describing the universe and our place in it. We can trace the history of television to gain further perspective into the era and the gender and social roles of that time. Television can often mirror the major arguments and social movements, as well as advances in technology, that occur in society. As with film, the pictorial possibilities of television are quite vast, depending on the type of show (single-camera or multi-camera). Television can also encompass some of the seven activities of art, such as comedy, tragedy, history and music. Just recently, many people have hailed this era of production as the golden age of television. As long as television can focus on the art aspect and refuse to be totally sucked in by the commercial aspect, it can be pretty incredible.
TV can be art, it can be a commercial venture, or it can be both. The idea of “art for art’s sake” is comparatively new when we compare it to the rest of the history of art, as described to us in the “Film as Art” article. This concept arose from the Aestheticism movement that came about at the turn of the century following the Victorian Age. Before this, art carried a large obligation to be moral and to teach or educate, or even to simply make sense of the world around us. In the way that media has evolved into the present, especially with the digital technology that we have at our fingertips nowadays, it is hard to deny that television encompasses many things, from being an art form to a source of education to, ultimately, a commercial venture.
An interesting way to think about this is to look at the triangle between the work, the artist, and the observer (described in “Film as Art”) is situated in the consumer culture that we live in. Television and film rely heavily on money in order to become a reality because of distribution and production costs. Consequently, it is hard to ignore the fact that the need for capital influences the nature of television. In order for artists to create art (television), they need to be able to meet the demands of their consumers, who will then buy into these programs and thus allow the artists to continue creating those works.
A television is a piece of technology that sits in most living rooms and a lucky few bedrooms.
It would be a great disservice to claim that television shows are not art just because people are trying to make money off of them. Even things that are created for the sole purpose of selling something (a commercial, maybe) should still be considered art. Why? Because creative people were hired for their artistic ability to make something appealing. Art. It is true that art and commerce are usually interdependent, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that commercializing something takes away its "artness" (and I know that's not a word). The motivation behind the art and consequently the content is definitely changed with the presence of pressure to sell, but the fact that the content itself is art is unchanging.
I don't see why television can't be both an art form and a commercial venture. As noted in the reading, art is constantly redefining itself with new languages and forms. Just like they mentioned how film altered the "frozen moments" that were available in photography, television can be doing the same thing. I find it interesting that motion pictures are more easily accepted as being a form of art while people tend to feel more iffy about television due to the placement of commercials. Nowadays with the rise of technology like TiVo and streaming services like Netflix, the commercial aspect of television is diminishing or taking new forms.
I believe that art can be commercial while also holding artistic elements. There are going to be differences between film vs theater, as well as film vs tv and other mediums, but I stand behind the belief that these can all be accepted in their own distinct artistic format. People will always criticize different styles and mediums of art but in the end art is completely subjective.
To me, this question is very double sided. On one hand, TV is an art and the shows, movies, and everything shown on TV is very artistic. However, all this art, which is shown through the TV, is a business. A business in which depends on it's commercials to raise them money. A commercial venture is all about making money, and finding ways to make their company the most amount of money. So what is truly important? Producing art or producing whatever will make them the most amount of money? I think society has gotten to the place where we want to make the most amount of money, in any way we can. However, with that being said, I know it is a business and you have to make money (it's how they pay their bills), I still believe that what is produced on TV should still be considered art. If something wasn't artistic or wasn't good, then it wouldn't be on TV. So just because they are making money off their artwork, it doesn't mean we can't call it art. TV is all about making money, however they cannot do that without the production of art.
I think that television is both an art and a commercial venture. There can be no television without the commercial aspect of it as the industry is, at the end of the day, a business. As we discussed in class the other day, Hollywood is greedy and the ultimate goal of networks is money. This supplies the commercial aspect of television. However, based on the commercial aspect of television such as commercial or sponsors alone, there will be no television. Television could not possibly survive on only the commercial. It also consists of an artistic side as well. Producing something, be it a feature length film or a television show requires the artistic skill and direction of many people. There are many components and much creativity required to make these ideas into a reality, hence making television art. Every shot must be thought through and planned carefully and yes, hollywood is greedy. But I like to believe that the creators of shows are not out for the money exactly but are just trying to realize their artistic vision. So yes, i think television is an art form but at the same time, it is also a commercial venture.
I look at television as an art form for sure, it is something that takes a bunch of different pieces and skills to make this production for people all over the country to view and enjoy. After reading the article, "Film As An Art", I think it is safe to say that the opinion of the author is also that film is an art form. The writing and the direction of the films are art in themselves and should be recognized as so. I do agree money is a big factor in television by trying to make as much money as possible, but that does not mean it takes out the artistic side of television. Each form of artistic skill that goes into making a television show, which is hundreds of positions, or little pieces to the puzzle that is the show are all still on display even when trying to make money. It may not be the art that people hundreds of years ago viewed as art, but it is something that we as a society see as an art form today. The definition and examples of art have been evolving as long as time has been, paintings were once dominant art forms and now where people consider pictures they take on their iPhones to be art, so I think it is apparent that television is atop the charts as an art form to modern day society.
I believe that television is both an art and a commercial industry. Obviously the television industry is interested in making money, since virtually every network (excluding PBS) is a for-profit business. However, on the other hand, if all television programming was 24/7 commercials, nobody would watch. So many of the recent advancements in television (like online streaming, DVR, increased premium cable subscriptions) have come from the viewers' desire to avoid watching commercials altogether. Television as a business needs viewers in order to survive, and yet those viewers have little to no interest in the commercial side of the medium. Viewers want the non-commercial programming, which I consider the artistic element of television. Networks have to create art in the form of well-written and well-produced shows that their viewers want to watch. When programming loses its artistic qualities, usually when a show is too formulaic or unimaginative, it will draw fewer viewers, which in turn hurts the networks' profits, so it will get cancelled. On the other hand, shows that have deep artistic elements to them tend to have devoted followings, which brings better ratings. Innovative shows like "Lost" for example, have a deep psychological impact on viewers, and drew in huge ratings. Television networks have incentive to continue creating art in the form of high-quality productions because those shows have the potential to get higher ratings, which translates into more money for the company. In this way, art and business are interdependent, not at odds.
I truly believe that television is both an art form and a commercial venture. As we've talked about in class, at the end of the day, films and TV shows just need to make money. The executives that run them on a studio and network level will do whatever they can to make sure that happens via advertisements, subscriptions, etc. The creative visionaries and showrunners behind TV shows are the ones that need to make their network happy and make them money, but they also want to create a show that looks good, attracts a fan base, and allows them to put their artistic touch onto. Merriam-Webster defines art as "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings." If you've seen AMC and Vince Gilligan's "Breaking Bad," you would be hard-pressed to say that it isn't an art form, with its gorgeous shots of the landscape in New Mexico and groundbreaking character arc in the form of Walter White. Furthermore, there are countless shows that communicate ideas or feelings that are important for people to hear about. Take "Master of None," Aziz Ansari's new show on Netflix, for an example, which is a comedy set in NYC that examines themes such as the stereotyping of Indian Americans, aging parents, and male privilege. His feelings on all of those issues and more are expressed in his show, which is exactly what the definition of art says. To end, the reading mentions that dance was an art form recognized by the ancients. So why can't TV shows that portray dance such as "Flesh and Bone" or even "So You Think You Can Dance" also be considered as such? Therefore, I full-heartedly believe that television is an art form, as well as a commercial venture.
I believe that television is just as much an art form as a commercial venture. From the budding independent filmmaker to the multimedia factory we call Hollywood, one of the primary goals will always be commercially rooted. This goes beyond just the money itself. Generating exposure, building a fanbase, securing and showcasing endorsements--all of these things are important to keeping the television industry up and running. That part of it is undeniable.
However, television is far more than just a narrow-minded business venture. According to the reading, "Film as Art", there are many forms of art that have inspired and been integrated into film. For example, for thousands of years we have seen written novels as art. Many television shows are derived from novels, turning text into a concrete image and incorporating underlying themes in that imagery. Is that not an art? I would even argue that as a short-circuit sign, film can actually be a greater test of your creativity, as the simplified relationship between signifier and signified forces you to think differently about what you're shooting. Christian Metz summed it up very well, saying "A film is difficult to explain because it is easy to understand."
What about music? Music is a form of art. Film uses or removes music as needed to influence the "mood" and pacing of each scene, creating a more immersive experience for viewers. Is that not an art? Finally, if photography is considered an art, how is film, as a series of moving photographs in its most literal sense, being questioned on its artistic credibility? I feel like cinema is one of the most complex forms of art one can undertake. To effectively synthesize all of these art forms into one scene, one feeling--must be an art in itself.
Even shows or movies most people claim as commercial "sell-outs", like the highly criticized "Transformers 4: Age of Extinction", are still a product of this art-making process. "The Language of Film: Signs and Syntax" posited film as similar to a language; it can be "read" with varying levels of fluency, and has both a denotative and connotative meaning to what appears on the screen. A rose, depending on its appearance, placement, and angle, can have a variety of connotations on screen. No matter how "poorly made" you think a television show may be, there are conscious choices made in the creation of each scene to elicit some kind of feeling or reaction from its viewers. It is still a combination of themes, images, and sounds that requires a creative vision to fully conceptualize. Even with its commercial interests, film-making itself is a form of art.
Why not both? Just as traditional forms of art can generate revenue, television is no different. The people at production studios use their artistic skills and talents to produce content that can generate revenue. A painter sits in his studio at home using his artistic vision to create a painting that can generate revenue. I think a lot of people may immediately think of television as a commercial venture because of how the ultimate end goal (profit) of Hollywood and broadcast corporations overshadows the behind-the-scenes artistic value of television. Today, we are advertised to non-stop through a variety of media. It may be this overindulgence that leads us to associate the commercialization of television to the production of a show. It is true that shows are designed in ways to produce the most profit and shows that don’t produce profit are canceled, but the production of a show is still an art and artists need money to continue producing their content. The biggest takeaway from the reading “Film as Art” for me was the realization of how perceptions of art has changed through the centuries as new channels of media are created. The perception of the definition of art is and has always been very subjective and dynamic, but when we place anything created by humans under a metaphorical microscope, anything can be defined as art - works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
I believe television has become both in today's society. Earlier in television's history I would say it was truly just art when there was one sponsor at the beginning of the show but now with approximately 6 commercials coming up every 10 minutes it has made an impact in the television world. However, people still watch television for the entertainment and the art. The mass different amount of genres help people get satisfied while the commercials are there for advertisement. One key important concept to consider is the end goal of each market, producers of shows and commercials are trying to make money but market different ways. Art on television is very important because has humans we are attracted to the most interesting and usually the most interesting makes the most money. Commercials are art as well because it takes a specific strategy to have those advertisements engraved in our head, like "built Ford tough" or "stop freakin call Beakin." Usually, these commercials are the most affective at marketing and create the most revenue. In the end they are similar in ways to generate money, use art to be the most interesting and broadcasted through television for our entertainment.
I think television is an art form but it's main purpose is for commercial reasons. Television and film are far to expensive to produce for any television show or commercial to not be made for profit. Earlier in history art was truly and fully art however, society has changed these norms and now these art forms are being utilized for more than just simply art. While all forms of media still remain various types of art forms, the main intent behind the creation of these art forms is for commercial purposes. One can argue that reality television shows such as the Real World or Jersey Shore are not art forms but in fact, sadly, they are. Creativity was put into the creation of these shows and therefore I believe it is still considered an art form.
When looking at the mandate of almost all television providers, their purpose is to make money for their shareholders. To me, this mandate makes television primarily a commercial venture. But, I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. In order to make money, the television providers must create a product consumers want, and many want artistic television. With the rise in popularity of cable networks and streaming services, there are more avenues to exhibit content, and more people can take more risks in their expression on television. A great deal of thought goes into a television costume design, set design, script, editing and many other aspects which I would consider art. Just as fashion, architecture, writing, and film editing is considered an art form. It is the medium that is used to exhibit the art of tv that is concerned about commercial gains, and therefore makes television a commercial enterprise. One could even successfully argue that the commercials themselves that air during television broadcasts are also an art form. They require actors, costumes, sets, scripts and editing, just like a television series does.
Television can be seen as being both an art form and a commercial venture, but it's important to acknowledge that television (for the most part) never makes it on air unless it's profitable. So in a way, television doesn't reach a platform to been seen at the art form stage unless it's primarily beneficial as a commercial venture. Since the nature of television is run through networks and broadcasting, it's extremely difficult to create television programming that is strictly an art form such as seen in many independent films in cinema. Networks are held accountable by shareholder interests and therefore television programs are primarily a commercial venture. One could argue that regardless of it's commercial output, television is an art form just because it deals in a medium that is artistic. However, I think it also depends on the program itself, as many would not consider reality shows or the nightly news to be art. Television goes hand in hand with consumerism and it can be seen just with the way commercials and advertising is used. If it won't attract viewers, then it simply doesn't get made.
Television is as much art as it is commercial venture. TV networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and others will only pick up pilots and order seasons from a studio if they believe it is a viable risk; in other words, will this show make them a profit and will it be enough to make it worth the continued investments. Like most other forms of art, some shows will make more than others and some might have more "artistic value" than others (it's mostly a matter of opinion anyway) but regardless I think it's safe to say that all TV is made with the intent of it being art and making money. TV shows, much like film and other recorded visual mediums (commercials, YouTube creator content, vlogs, music videos, etc), have a lot of parts that all contribute to artistic design that make them art. Things like camera angles, different kinds of shots, actors or lack of actors, set layout, costume design, visual effect, soundtrack, and sound effects; all add up to help create the artistic identity of the TV show and can also be used to create an even bigger commercial impact for the network. Shows like Glee, SMASH, and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend have music performed in show that can be sold later on and shows like Star Trek, The Flash, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer spawned action figures, video game and comic book spin-offs and were/are successful revenues of income. And all of those shows could be considered art so I feel like television can be considered both a form of art and a commercial venue.
22 comments:
The reading defines art in a number of ways but foremost as a way to understand and describe the universe and our place in it. In this sense, the content shown on television is definitely an art. But it's also a business. A show, no matter how creative or poignant, will not survive without advertisers. Television itself is a medium and a business that like any other business would not survive without funding. If there are no viewers, there are no advertisers/sponsors. The content shown through television is definitely an art. Television shows involve a collaboration of artists and art forms. I think streaming platforms are encouraging more artistic television ventures because funding is less volatile. Art is life. Be yourself.
In "Film as an Art," a few characteristics of all art are laid out. In order to classify something as art, one must look at the relationship between the work, the artist, and the observer, examine it from the point of view of production in comparison to the POV of construction, look at the psychological effects, and acknowledge that all art is a product with the intent to make money. Much of the article "The Language of Film: Signs and Syntax" compares the language of movies to the language of literature. I believe it's safe to say that most literature is considered art, so if literature and film are comparable in the terms we can used to describe both of them, does that, in turn, also make film an art? One specific topic in the article that led me to believe film is art was the discussion of the three orders of cinematic signs: icon, index, and symbol. These take single scenes or single frames and identify the subtext (if any) of that frame. Pictures are more widely considered art than films and TV, but aren't films and TV just a bajillion different pictures put together? In this context, I believe that television is an art form.
However, "Art" and "Commercial Venture" are not mutually exclusive terms. In the essay "Film as an Art," it is mentioned that all arts are inherently economic products. If film and TV are an art, this means they must also be commercial ventures in some way. While TV cannot be art without being a commercial venture, it can be a commercial venture without being art. For example, it is difficult to compare the intended audience and reception when looking at "Teen Mom" and "30 Rock." One is an unscripted reality television series following the lives of teen mothers, while the other is a crafted sitcom with a whole production team, script writers, lighting crew, prop teams, costuming, etc. Should "Teen Mom" be considered under the television "art" umbrella? Sure, it's entertaining to some, but who would the creator of the show be? Who is the artist? Are the story editors the artists? The teens themselves, as (you assume) they technically create the scripts? I believe that "Teen Mom" is to TV what Bernett Newman is to painters and, quite frankly, I consider neither of them art (http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/ check out this link if you don't know what I'm talking about). Though I'm sure some people WOULD consider both of those things art. So perhaps, as with most things, we must realize that art and things that we like to consider high-order entertainment are subjective.
I do believe all of it is a commercial venture. That's just a part of being art.
I think that TV is an art. TV also happens to create large amounts of money, but I think that first and foremost, TV exists to be consumed by the viewer just as other forms of art are. This is mostly because I have always thought that anything involving film is automatically considered art (I’m very stubborn) and partly because of what we read about for today.
As mentioned in “Film as Art,” the triangle of the artist experience shows the relationship between the artist, the production, the work, consumption, and the observer. This triangle shows how and why art gets produced and consumed. It can be argued that art is created because of feedback from observers, or because of the money it generates, but it also can be argued that art starts from the artist “for arts sake.” I like the idea of “art for arts sake” much better.
TV also requires lots of technicalities, details, and very intentional choices on how to tell the story that a show is trying to tell. “The Language of Film” article explains these in great detail, and I think that the complexity of the process adds to TV’s artistic value. Although reality TV shows have garbage content, they are still filmed in such a way that a dramatic story is told, and the shots used are intentional in order to make a statement about what “reality” actually is. The idea of reality TV shows being art is something that makes me uncomfortable, but I definitely think that the process of their creation is inherently artistic and that should be taken into account.
TV is art, but because TV is art, does that mean that it cannot also be commercial? No. According to "Film as an Art," all art is a product with the explicit intent to make some sort of dollar value for your work. In order to classify the art, first and foremost, one has to look at the relationship between the work, the artist, and the observer. From there, one must examine it from the POV of construction compared to the the production, and look at psychological effects. When discussing this article with Tori Sanford, she asked me the question, "does that mean The Jersey Shore is art?" This is something I had never thought of before, but after reading the article I believe that yes, even the tawdry show The Jersey Shore is a form of art.
When looking at the relationship between the artist and the work, we can observe theories of the production of art, while when looking at the relationship between the work and the observer, we see theories of consumption. Basically, depending on the ways in which we approach the artistic experience, we will have two different experiences: art vs. consumption. The article does point out that inherently, art is made for economic products and "as such must eventually be considered in economic terms." When reading this I immediately think of the films that are nominated for Oscar's such as Carol or Room being made as art for art's sake and not as much for the monetary gain compared to blockbusters such as The Avengers and Jurassic World. I, personally do see both as a depiction of art but one is art for art's sake and the other is art for profit.
The question you pose is an interesting one because I think it points towards what we want television to be rather than what it is. I think we want to think of it as an art with no ulterior motive other than to creatively express society, animation, fantasy and many other mediums in various ways. As “Film as an Art” put it, the ancients used their forms of entertainment to make sense of the world around them, before commercial ventures even had a place in society. So although we do see television and film as an art form, we cannot deny that it is fueled by and funded by advertisement companies and larger corporations. Without these things, TV wouldn’t thrive as much as it does today. With money, TV shows are able to make more meaningful “art” that align with what the greater public is wanting to see.
The “Language of Film” also introduces how humans learn to understand visual images from TV before learning to speak. We cannot deny something that is universally understood across hundreds of languages and cultures. Of course people can be more literate than others in the world of TV and art, but from my experiences and what I’ve gathered from these readings, I see television as an art before I see it as a commercial venture.
I believe that to look at television as an art form does not mean that it cannot also be a commercial venture. Although they are not one in the same and they are both motivated by different things, when it comes to television I can see where they share a relationship.
The reading "Film As An Art" took us along the path of explaining all the different arts and what the characteristics are and then also how those relate and differ when it comes to television. With that reading, it would be hard to argue that television is not an art. There is thought and creativity and a lot of time that goes into these productions in order for the consumption to be at a high level. Today we look at television and the industry as a means to making a lot of profit. That seems to be the focus, "who had to highest paying blockbuster film?". But that really is just the one side of the triangle per say. Although most products are made for "economic terms" and that the intent is to make money, that does not take the art side out of the picture. If anything if can become a larger and more important aspect in the production process because the better the artistic value of the product the better it will look to the observers. There is this almost give and take relationship.
I do believe that art has changed and what we look at now that we consider as art has revolutionized from the beginning of art though. Today's art can be looked at as something like special effects. The article explains how art changes over time and I think that it changes in order to keep up with the times and to keep observers interested.There are many different arts and in order to put together a film or television show one would need to carry that artistic touch and mindset to the production, the motivation may be the dollar signs but it does not take away from the artistic value that goes into creating it.
While I do believe that television can definitely be viewed as a commercial venture, after reading "Film as an Art," it would be a disservice to not recognize television as an art form. Pictorial and literary arts dominated the scene for nearly 7,000 years. However, the emergence of recording media was extremely significant and led to the expansion of what art can be. When considering performance, representational and recording arts, a common theme between all of these art forms is that an artist produces the work and an observer consumes the work. I would argue that more than most other mediums, television is extremely useful in describing the universe and our place in it. We can trace the history of television to gain further perspective into the era and the gender and social roles of that time. Television can often mirror the major arguments and social movements, as well as advances in technology, that occur in society. As with film, the pictorial possibilities of television are quite vast, depending on the type of show (single-camera or multi-camera). Television can also encompass some of the seven activities of art, such as comedy, tragedy, history and music. Just recently, many people have hailed this era of production as the golden age of television. As long as television can focus on the art aspect and refuse to be totally sucked in by the commercial aspect, it can be pretty incredible.
TV can be art, it can be a commercial venture, or it can be both. The idea of “art for art’s sake” is comparatively new when we compare it to the rest of the history of art, as described to us in the “Film as Art” article. This concept arose from the Aestheticism movement that came about at the turn of the century following the Victorian Age. Before this, art carried a large obligation to be moral and to teach or educate, or even to simply make sense of the world around us. In the way that media has evolved into the present, especially with the digital technology that we have at our fingertips nowadays, it is hard to deny that television encompasses many things, from being an art form to a source of education to, ultimately, a commercial venture.
An interesting way to think about this is to look at the triangle between the work, the artist, and the observer (described in “Film as Art”) is situated in the consumer culture that we live in. Television and film rely heavily on money in order to become a reality because of distribution and production costs. Consequently, it is hard to ignore the fact that the need for capital influences the nature of television. In order for artists to create art (television), they need to be able to meet the demands of their consumers, who will then buy into these programs and thus allow the artists to continue creating those works.
A television is a piece of technology that sits in most living rooms and a lucky few bedrooms.
It would be a great disservice to claim that television shows are not art just because people are trying to make money off of them.
Even things that are created for the sole purpose of selling something (a commercial, maybe) should still be considered art. Why? Because creative people were hired for their artistic ability to make something appealing. Art.
It is true that art and commerce are usually interdependent, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that commercializing something takes away its "artness" (and I know that's not a word).
The motivation behind the art and consequently the content is definitely changed with the presence of pressure to sell, but the fact that the content itself is art is unchanging.
I don't see why television can't be both an art form and a commercial venture. As noted in the reading, art is constantly redefining itself with new languages and forms. Just like they mentioned how film altered the "frozen moments" that were available in photography, television can be doing the same thing. I find it interesting that motion pictures are more easily accepted as being a form of art while people tend to feel more iffy about television due to the placement of commercials. Nowadays with the rise of technology like TiVo and streaming services like Netflix, the commercial aspect of television is diminishing or taking new forms.
I believe that art can be commercial while also holding artistic elements. There are going to be differences between film vs theater, as well as film vs tv and other mediums, but I stand behind the belief that these can all be accepted in their own distinct artistic format. People will always criticize different styles and mediums of art but in the end art is completely subjective.
To me, this question is very double sided. On one hand, TV is an art and the shows, movies, and everything shown on TV is very artistic. However, all this art, which is shown through the TV, is a business. A business in which depends on it's commercials to raise them money. A commercial venture is all about making money, and finding ways to make their company the most amount of money. So what is truly important? Producing art or producing whatever will make them the most amount of money? I think society has gotten to the place where we want to make the most amount of money, in any way we can.
However, with that being said, I know it is a business and you have to make money (it's how they pay their bills), I still believe that what is produced on TV should still be considered art. If something wasn't artistic or wasn't good, then it wouldn't be on TV. So just because they are making money off their artwork, it doesn't mean we can't call it art. TV is all about making money, however they cannot do that without the production of art.
I think that television is both an art and a commercial venture. There can be no television without the commercial aspect of it as the industry is, at the end of the day, a business. As we discussed in class the other day, Hollywood is greedy and the ultimate goal of networks is money. This supplies the commercial aspect of television. However, based on the commercial aspect of television such as commercial or sponsors alone, there will be no television. Television could not possibly survive on only the commercial. It also consists of an artistic side as well. Producing something, be it a feature length film or a television show requires the artistic skill and direction of many people. There are many components and much creativity required to make these ideas into a reality, hence making television art. Every shot must be thought through and planned carefully and yes, hollywood is greedy. But I like to believe that the creators of shows are not out for the money exactly but are just trying to realize their artistic vision. So yes, i think television is an art form but at the same time, it is also a commercial venture.
I look at television as an art form for sure, it is something that takes a bunch of different pieces and skills to make this production for people all over the country to view and enjoy. After reading the article, "Film As An Art", I think it is safe to say that the opinion of the author is also that film is an art form. The writing and the direction of the films are art in themselves and should be recognized as so. I do agree money is a big factor in television by trying to make as much money as possible, but that does not mean it takes out the artistic side of television. Each form of artistic skill that goes into making a television show, which is hundreds of positions, or little pieces to the puzzle that is the show are all still on display even when trying to make money.
It may not be the art that people hundreds of years ago viewed as art, but it is something that we as a society see as an art form today. The definition and examples of art have been evolving as long as time has been, paintings were once dominant art forms and now where people consider pictures they take on their iPhones to be art, so I think it is apparent that television is atop the charts as an art form to modern day society.
I believe that television is both an art and a commercial industry. Obviously the television industry is interested in making money, since virtually every network (excluding PBS) is a for-profit business. However, on the other hand, if all television programming was 24/7 commercials, nobody would watch. So many of the recent advancements in television (like online streaming, DVR, increased premium cable subscriptions) have come from the viewers' desire to avoid watching commercials altogether. Television as a business needs viewers in order to survive, and yet those viewers have little to no interest in the commercial side of the medium. Viewers want the non-commercial programming, which I consider the artistic element of television. Networks have to create art in the form of well-written and well-produced shows that their viewers want to watch. When programming loses its artistic qualities, usually when a show is too formulaic or unimaginative, it will draw fewer viewers, which in turn hurts the networks' profits, so it will get cancelled. On the other hand, shows that have deep artistic elements to them tend to have devoted followings, which brings better ratings. Innovative shows like "Lost" for example, have a deep psychological impact on viewers, and drew in huge ratings. Television networks have incentive to continue creating art in the form of high-quality productions because those shows have the potential to get higher ratings, which translates into more money for the company. In this way, art and business are interdependent, not at odds.
I truly believe that television is both an art form and a commercial venture. As we've talked about in class, at the end of the day, films and TV shows just need to make money. The executives that run them on a studio and network level will do whatever they can to make sure that happens via advertisements, subscriptions, etc. The creative visionaries and showrunners behind TV shows are the ones that need to make their network happy and make them money, but they also want to create a show that looks good, attracts a fan base, and allows them to put their artistic touch onto. Merriam-Webster defines art as "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings." If you've seen AMC and Vince Gilligan's "Breaking Bad," you would be hard-pressed to say that it isn't an art form, with its gorgeous shots of the landscape in New Mexico and groundbreaking character arc in the form of Walter White. Furthermore, there are countless shows that communicate ideas or feelings that are important for people to hear about. Take "Master of None," Aziz Ansari's new show on Netflix, for an example, which is a comedy set in NYC that examines themes such as the stereotyping of Indian Americans, aging parents, and male privilege. His feelings on all of those issues and more are expressed in his show, which is exactly what the definition of art says. To end, the reading mentions that dance was an art form recognized by the ancients. So why can't TV shows that portray dance such as "Flesh and Bone" or even "So You Think You Can Dance" also be considered as such? Therefore, I full-heartedly believe that television is an art form, as well as a commercial venture.
I believe that television is just as much an art form as a commercial venture. From the budding independent filmmaker to the multimedia factory we call Hollywood, one of the primary goals will always be commercially rooted. This goes beyond just the money itself. Generating exposure, building a fanbase, securing and showcasing endorsements--all of these things are important to keeping the television industry up and running. That part of it is undeniable.
However, television is far more than just a narrow-minded business venture. According to the reading, "Film as Art", there are many forms of art that have inspired and been integrated into film. For example, for thousands of years we have seen written novels as art. Many television shows are derived from novels, turning text into a concrete image and incorporating underlying themes in that imagery. Is that not an art? I would even argue that as a short-circuit sign, film can actually be a greater test of your creativity, as the simplified relationship between signifier and signified forces you to think differently about what you're shooting. Christian Metz summed it up very well, saying "A film is difficult to explain because it is easy to understand."
What about music? Music is a form of art. Film uses or removes music as needed to influence the "mood" and pacing of each scene, creating a more immersive experience for viewers. Is that not an art? Finally, if photography is considered an art, how is film, as a series of moving photographs in its most literal sense, being questioned on its artistic credibility? I feel like cinema is one of the most complex forms of art one can undertake. To effectively synthesize all of these art forms into one scene, one feeling--must be an art in itself.
Even shows or movies most people claim as commercial "sell-outs", like the highly criticized "Transformers 4: Age of Extinction", are still a product of this art-making process. "The Language of Film: Signs and Syntax" posited film as similar to a language; it can be "read" with varying levels of fluency, and has both a denotative and connotative meaning to what appears on the screen. A rose, depending on its appearance, placement, and angle, can have a variety of connotations on screen. No matter how "poorly made" you think a television show may be, there are conscious choices made in the creation of each scene to elicit some kind of feeling or reaction from its viewers. It is still a combination of themes, images, and sounds that requires a creative vision to fully conceptualize. Even with its commercial interests, film-making itself is a form of art.
Why not both? Just as traditional forms of art can generate revenue, television is no different. The people at production studios use their artistic skills and talents to produce content that can generate revenue. A painter sits in his studio at home using his artistic vision to create a painting that can generate revenue. I think a lot of people may immediately think of television as a commercial venture because of how the ultimate end goal (profit) of Hollywood and broadcast corporations overshadows the behind-the-scenes artistic value of television. Today, we are advertised to non-stop through a variety of media. It may be this overindulgence that leads us to associate the commercialization of television to the production of a show. It is true that shows are designed in ways to produce the most profit and shows that don’t produce profit are canceled, but the production of a show is still an art and artists need money to continue producing their content. The biggest takeaway from the reading “Film as Art” for me was the realization of how perceptions of art has changed through the centuries as new channels of media are created. The perception of the definition of art is and has always been very subjective and dynamic, but when we place anything created by humans under a metaphorical microscope, anything can be defined as art - works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
I believe television has become both in today's society. Earlier in television's history I would say it was truly just art when there was one sponsor at the beginning of the show but now with approximately 6 commercials coming up every 10 minutes it has made an impact in the television world. However, people still watch television for the entertainment and the art. The mass different amount of genres help people get satisfied while the commercials are there for advertisement. One key important concept to consider is the end goal of each market, producers of shows and commercials are trying to make money but market different ways. Art on television is very important because has humans we are attracted to the most interesting and usually the most interesting makes the most money. Commercials are art as well because it takes a specific strategy to have those advertisements engraved in our head, like "built Ford tough" or "stop freakin call Beakin." Usually, these commercials are the most affective at marketing and create the most revenue. In the end they are similar in ways to generate money, use art to be the most interesting and broadcasted through television for our entertainment.
I think television is an art form but it's main purpose is for commercial reasons. Television and film are far to expensive to produce for any television show or commercial to not be made for profit. Earlier in history art was truly and fully art however, society has changed these norms and now these art forms are being utilized for more than just simply art. While all forms of media still remain various types of art forms, the main intent behind the creation of these art forms is for commercial purposes. One can argue that reality television shows such as the Real World or Jersey Shore are not art forms but in fact, sadly, they are. Creativity was put into the creation of these shows and therefore I believe it is still considered an art form.
When looking at the mandate of almost all television providers, their purpose is to make money for their shareholders. To me, this mandate makes television primarily a commercial venture. But, I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. In order to make money, the television providers must create a product consumers want, and many want artistic television. With the rise in popularity of cable networks and streaming services, there are more avenues to exhibit content, and more people can take more risks in their expression on television. A great deal of thought goes into a television costume design, set design, script, editing and many other aspects which I would consider art. Just as fashion, architecture, writing, and film editing is considered an art form. It is the medium that is used to exhibit the art of tv that is concerned about commercial gains, and therefore makes television a commercial enterprise. One could even successfully argue that the commercials themselves that air during television broadcasts are also an art form. They require actors, costumes, sets, scripts and editing, just like a television series does.
Television can be seen as being both an art form and a commercial venture, but it's important to acknowledge that television (for the most part) never makes it on air unless it's profitable. So in a way, television doesn't reach a platform to been seen at the art form stage unless it's primarily beneficial as a commercial venture. Since the nature of television is run through networks and broadcasting, it's extremely difficult to create television programming that is strictly an art form such as seen in many independent films in cinema. Networks are held accountable by shareholder interests and therefore television programs are primarily a commercial venture. One could argue that regardless of it's commercial output, television is an art form just because it deals in a medium that is artistic. However, I think it also depends on the program itself, as many would not consider reality shows or the nightly news to be art. Television goes hand in hand with consumerism and it can be seen just with the way commercials and advertising is used. If it won't attract viewers, then it simply doesn't get made.
Television is as much art as it is commercial venture. TV networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and others will only pick up pilots and order seasons from a studio if they believe it is a viable risk; in other words, will this show make them a profit and will it be enough to make it worth the continued investments. Like most other forms of art, some shows will make more than others and some might have more "artistic value" than others (it's mostly a matter of opinion anyway) but regardless I think it's safe to say that all TV is made with the intent of it being art and making money. TV shows, much like film and other recorded visual mediums (commercials, YouTube creator content, vlogs, music videos, etc), have a lot of parts that all contribute to artistic design that make them art. Things like camera angles, different kinds of shots, actors or lack of actors, set layout, costume design, visual effect, soundtrack, and sound effects; all add up to help create the artistic identity of the TV show and can also be used to create an even bigger commercial impact for the network. Shows like Glee, SMASH, and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend have music performed in show that can be sold later on and shows like Star Trek, The Flash, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer spawned action figures, video game and comic book spin-offs and were/are successful revenues of income. And all of those shows could be considered art so I feel like television can be considered both a form of art and a commercial venue.
Post a Comment