Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Television Aesthetics PDF
Television Aesthetics PDF
Television Aesthetics
Sarah Cardwell
Television Aesthetics 73
to the details of texts, a sincere and fulfilling engagement with them. A programme
that inspires powerful responses in us gives rise to the need to understand it more
fully and to understand why it has affected us thus. This need is met by a sustained
and committed investigation of the programme’s aesthetic qualities. The need and
the meeting of it should be intertwined in our critical writing.
While making our motivation for textual analysis explicit has historically been
uncommon within television studies, philosophical aesthetics has long understood
its importance. Colin Lyas, an aesthetician whose work on interpretation and eval-
uation can be valuable when considering television,6 underlines the importance of
encouraging students to apprehend and appreciate a work fully before analysing it.
Otherwise, they are ‘reduced to mumbling about the publicly observable aspects of
a work with no idea how these relate to the value of that with which they are
confronted, and no idea, even, wherein that value may reside.’7 Employing the
example of the analysis of poetry, Lyas observes that ‘the place to start is with the
attempt to grasp such things as the expressive quality of the poem: Is it mawkish,
glib, ironic, witty, sad? If sad, is the quality of the expression of the sadness, for
example, too excessive or too commonplace?’ One may then move from this initial
apprehension to an observation of how formal and stylistic details, ‘the rhyme
scheme, the stress pattern, the vowel sounds, the alliterations contribute to the
achievement of that effect.’8 Scholars of television aesthetics would recognise these
tenets of good criticism, which moves beyond the competent, descriptive observa-
tion of textual details, towards a personal and powerful response to a programme
and consequent detailed analysis.
Evaluation
David Thorburn, in his article ‘Television as an Aesthetic Medium,’ argues for the
‘crucial enterprise’ of ‘evaluative criticism aiming to disclose the thematic and
formal excellence of particular programs.’9 He thus neatly discloses that television
aesthetics is concerned not only with interpretation but also with that rather
more contentious matter: evaluation – and with the connection between the two.
Charlotte Brunsdon’s 1990 groundbreaking work on quality television threw down
the gauntlet with a powerful argument that ‘most academics involved in television
studies are using qualitative criteria, however expressed or repressed, and that the
constitution of the criteria involved should be the subject of explicit debate.’10 It was
only towards the end of the twentieth century that a handful of fellow television
scholars took up her challenge, and argued for greater reflection upon evaluation
in both scholarship and teaching.11
Christine Geraghty is one of those who consider that ‘television studies
would, I think, benefit from academics being more explicit about the evaluative
judgements that we inevitably make.’12 Importantly, Geraghty adds that ‘while
recognizing the social dimensions of any discussion of evaluation, I want to argue
the importance of a textual dimension to this question.’13 Thus evaluation is
understood as inextricably linked to (arising from) interpretation, something she
chap 9 24/4/06 6:46 am Page 75
Television Aesthetics 75
underscores when she asks for ‘an approach that emphasizes analytic description
and evaluative discussion across a range of programmes.’14
While to any outside observer this may seem uncontentious, it is the case within
television studies that, historically, programmes have been evaluated more often
on the basis of their representations and effects, their ideological and social impli-
cations, rather than their artistic achievements. Yet developing a more compre-
hensive and astute awareness of television programmes’ aesthetic qualities, and a
greater willingness to make critical discriminations, is vital. As Thorburn notes, a
scholar must understand the ‘literary or aesthetic dimensions’ of a programme ‘for
the basic work of historical and cultural interpretation;’15 he demonstrates how one
particular scholar ‘radically misreads these texts [1960s American spy series]
because he does not grant sufficient weight to their aesthetic qualities,’ especially
their tone and atmosphere.16
Furthermore, Geraghty foresees wider consequences if evaluation continues to
be sidelined within television studies: ‘in much teaching of television in higher
education questions of aesthetics are being neglected in ways that can only be
detrimental to future programming and audiences.’17 Television is one of the
primary sources of artworks in Western societies today, and television aesthetics
opens up to the television audience valuable skills of discrimination and evalua-
tion that are ultimately empowering. To avoid critical judgement, to deny it to our
students, is to deny them an essential critical education; it finally ‘impoverishes the
capacity of human beings to perceive the value-qualities of works and so deprives
them of sources of joy.’18
One of the most common objections mounted against increasing the role of
evaluation within television studies is that it will lead to a narrow ‘canon’ of ‘good
television,’ eliminating too many programmes as unworthy of study. Within tele-
vision aesthetics, this understandable and legitimate concern is recognised as an
important focus for ongoing debate; views on the matter are diverse. Brunsdon and
Geraghty maintain that programmes usually considered ‘popular’ or ‘mass’ televi-
sion need not be excluded from analysis: both have undertaken extensive work on
soap operas, for example. Importantly, though, they argue that discriminations can
be made within such genres – both between quality and non-quality television, and
between good and not-so-good television. They argue then for a pluralistic, but not
relativistic, approach.
Others offer different perspectives. Robin Nelson, in his analytical account of the
difficulties of critical judgement within contemporary television studies, tenta-
tively suggests a basis for future evaluation which recognises diversity but also
prioritises ‘common meaningfulness.’19 John Caughie goes further, defending his
decision to delineate a category of ‘serious drama,’ which both delimits the genre
in question and then makes further discriminations within it, maintaining the
capacity of some programmes over others for sustained analysis.20 Jacobs recog-
nises the ‘different aspirations of different kinds of television,’21 and notes that we
may regard any programme as a ‘pleasant casual distraction’ but that some
instances of television elicit ‘strong engagement, intense viewer proximity and
chap 9 24/4/06 6:46 am Page 76
concentrated attention,’ and ‘many will be able to withstand the kinds of critical
pressure that we normally apply to other artworks.’22 He thus cautiously implies
that some programmes are likely to reward sustained analysis better than others;
some are richer, more complex and more enduring.
Television aesthetics does not assume any particular hierarchy of texts or agreed
canon, but it does address questions of value, critical judgement and the selection
of criteria for evaluation. There is a healthy diversity of perspectives on evaluative
criticism within television aesthetics (as a forthcoming special issue of the Journal
of British Cinema and Television, ‘Good Television?’ will reveal).23
Television as an art
Despite their differences, these writers share a belief that some television is worthy
of sustained scrutiny and critical attention for its aesthetic qualities. And this view
has become increasingly popular.24 This is a marked shift in the way in which
television is regarded. Thorburn asserted the validity of an aesthetic approach to
television back in 1987, arguing that such an approach recognises that television
programmes are comparable with other arts, sharing with them ‘representational
or artistic’ and often ‘fictive or imaginative’ qualities.25 Yet it is only since the late
1990s that a significant number of scholars have expressed similar views. Jacobs
puts it concisely when he describes television as ‘a medium for artistic expression.’26
The implication of this view is that one of the main roles of the television scholar
is to explore and assess the artistic accomplishments exhibited in various
programmes. For too long, television has been considered primarily in terms of
its communicative, not artistic, functions. Television aesthetics recognises that
television is an art, and examines it accordingly.
Of course, television is a distinctive art. It has a specific history, and particular
and unique forms. Recognising these specificities is by no means incompatible
with recognising its identity (and status) as an art form alongside others. Indeed,
the exploration of medium-specific traits is the final area of television aesthetics
that I wish to outline here.
Television Aesthetics 77
the analysis and examination of an art form leads to the establishment of the appro-
priate value judgments or criteria that evaluate the art form – criticism. However,
when art critics question the value judgments pertaining to an art form and engage in
discussions regarding taste, harmony, unity, and balance, they further progress beyond
criticism, to a higher level of scholarly activity that Beardsley (1958) called ‘philosophy
of criticism, or metacriticism.’34
Metallinos considers that if one begins with the study of the arts, and then engages
in the study of criticism, the result is the establishment of the field of aesthetics,
which sustains strong connections between its constituent parts. Applied to televi-
sion, if one begins with the study of television art, as outlined above, and then
adds a reflective consideration of criticism (metacriticism), one ends up with the
field of television aesthetics. Crucial to this enterprise is the kind of work being
undertaken by television scholars such as those cited in this article. In addition,
further development is needed to take advantage of potentially useful work in
philosophical aesthetics. Aestheticians such as Noël Carroll have already shown
chap 9 24/4/06 6:46 am Page 78
Rediscovering television
Above all, television aesthetics refigures our potential relationship to the
programmes we know and love. Thorburn entreats us to consider television
programmes as art, not just as artefacts. He acknowledges that such a view is diffi-
cult to sustain because so many programmes ‘are partial achievements, arresting
and powerful intermittently, but lapsing into incoherence or easy stereotypes or
mechanical formulas of plot and character.’37 Nevertheless, he feels that the notion
of television programmes as artworks is potentially transformative. Thorburn
concludes: ‘Insisting on this distinction between art and artifact, I am clinging, I
recognize, to an outmoded humanism, which wants still to believe that there is a
significant difference between art and entertainment, art having value for us not
only as a cultural artifact but also intrinsically, because it is beautiful and wise.’38
Thorburn’s comments echo Diané Collinson on aesthetic experience: ‘aesthetic
experience at its highest and best is arresting, intense and utterly engrossing:
. . .when fully achieved it seizes one’s whole mind or imagination and conveys
whatever it does convey so vividly that the result is delight and knowledge.’39 If we
do not believe that television may sometimes offer such experiences, then perhaps
we ought not to spend our time examining its aesthetic qualities. If on the other
hand we do believe that such experiences are possible, however sporadically, then
surely the most appropriate response is to approach television programmes mind-
fully as expressive works of art, replete with significant aesthetic properties?
Notes
1 Although I have previously classified my own work as ‘television aesthetics,’ this article
goes one step further in bringing some of the work of other scholars under that
umbrella. Some of those scholars have used the term ‘television aesthetics’ themselves;
others might, of course, object to their inclusion within this nascent field. To clarify, I
do not mean to imply that those mentioned herein work only within the field of televi-
sion aesthetics, and I am aware that a synoptic overview such as is offered here risks
understating the scope of their work and/or misrepresenting their persuasions.
However, I am confident in observing trends and continuities in terms of vocabulary,
concerns and methodology; I have also sought to cite others’ work that I find most
sympathetic or complementary to my own approach, and most useful on my television
aesthetics course (though I have not included every source, such as John Corner’s excel-
lent overview of television studies; Corner, Critical Ideas in Television Studies, Oxford
University Press, 1999).
chap 9 24/4/06 6:46 am Page 79
Television Aesthetics 79
2 Sarah Cardwell, ‘“Television Aesthetics” and Close Analysis: Style and Mood in Perfect
Strangers (Stephen Poliakoff, 2001),’ in Douglas Pye and John Gibbs, eds, Style and
Meaning, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 180.
3 Ibid.
4 Jason Jacobs,‘Issues of Judgement and Value in Television Studies,’ International Journal
of Cultural Studies, 4:4, December 2001, 431.
5 Ibid.
6 Lyas did not intend that his work be applied to television, but I have found it valuable
both in teaching and in my critical work such as my latest book on Andrew Davies;
Sarah Cardwell, Andrew Davies, Manchester University Press, 2005.
7 Colin Lyas, ‘The Evaluation of Art,’ in Oswald Hanfling, ed., Philosophical Aesthetics: An
Introduction, Blackwell Publishers, 1992, 361.
8 Ibid.
9 David Thorburn, ‘Television as an Aesthetic Medium,’ Critical Studies in Mass Commu-
nication, 4:2, June 1987, 163.
10 Charlotte Brunsdon,‘Television: Aesthetics and Audiences,’ in Patricia Mellencamp, ed.,
Logics of Television: Essays in Cultural Criticism, Indiana University Press, 1990, p. 69.
11 Brunsdon also proposed a valuable distinction between quality and good television, which
encouraged further work on ‘quality television’ (see for example Simon Frith, ‘The Black
Box: The Value of Television and the Future of Television Research,’ Screen, 41:1, Spring
2000, and a forthcoming edited collection from I.B. Tauris on defining contemporary
quality television, edited by Janet McCabe and Kim Akass, which follows their conference
on ‘Quality American Television,’ held at Trinity College, Dublin in April 2004).
12 Christine Geraghty, ‘Aesthetics and Quality in Popular Television Drama,’ International
Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, 2003, 40.
13 Ibid., 26.
14 Ibid., 41–42.
15 David Thorburn, ‘Television as an Aesthetic Medium,’ p. 163.
16 Ibid., p. 164.
17 Geraghty, ‘Aesthetics and Quality in Popular Television Drama,’ p. 26.
18 Lyas, ‘The Evaluation of Art,’ p. 361.
19 Robin Nelson, TV Drama in Transition, Macmillan, 1997, p. 228.
20 John Caughie, Television Drama: Realism, Modernism and British Culture, Oxford
University Press, 2000.
21 Jacobs, ‘Issues of Judgement and Value in Television Studies,’ p. 430.
22 Ibid., p. 431; Jacobs notes that at this time such programmes are likely to be dramas and
documentaries, although the viewer may choose to watch other programmes with this
level of concentrated attention.
23 Issue 6 of the Journal of British Cinema and Television, forthcoming in 2006, is co-edited
by Steven Peacock and myself.
24 Jacobs suggests that this recent interest in close analysis might be in response to recent
trends within the medium itself: ‘The continued sense that the television text is mostly
inferior to the film text and cannot withstand concentrated critical pressure because it
lacks ‘symbolic density,’ rich mise-en-scène, and the promotion of identification as a
means of securing audience proximity, has to be revised in the light of contemporary
television’; Jacobs, ‘Issues of Judgement and Value in Television Studies,’ p. 433. I would
add that this shift in emphasis is just as likely to be indicative of the changing interests
of scholars as of changes in the programmes they study.
chap 9 24/4/06 6:46 am Page 80