And how does that relate to the quality of the main programming, that which lies between the commercials (I watch all my TV shows on Bluray or DVD, so no commercials, incidentally). You are missing the trees for the forest I believe.

Were there minute long intermissions in Hamlet to push products, would the play be a lesser play?

JBArk

This is where I think maybe people are fundamentally disagreeing with me: Fiction, whether it be novels, plays, films or episodic television can have as their only goal to entertain. Nothing wrong with that, though it is a little superficial. The media listed above are all storytelling media though, and have the potential to teach us about history, culture, life, death, sex love hate revenge sloth greed: i.e. the intricacies of the human condition. Storytelling, from cave paintings to oral traditions to song and to 10 min youtube clips, is the oldest art form, and there is a reason for this: abstracting experience into a story teaches universal lessons by example and through metaphoric and mythical association. (read some Joseph Campbell)

They TEACH, employing fact, drama and emotion. They are about the furthest thing from "POINTLESS" imaginable. When a civilization crumbles and fades, what is left? Not it's banks, its buildings, its people, its armies, but - it's stories.

There are many superficial stories that merely entertain, as their is much music that merely entertains. But could one say that music is simply entertainment, and pointless? If so, I fear the sayer is missing out on a good deal of life and living.

I will repeat what I wrote further up with regards to television: To me, saying TV is awful when only referring to network television is like saying eating in restaurants is bad because McDonald's has fed so many.

There is a lot of bad TV, a lot of bad storytelling a lot of bad music and a lot of bad theatre and writing. But storytelling is art. Art is culture. TV tells stories. I'll let you make the connection.

Cheers,

JBArk

But television programming has none of those attributes that you've listed. You're assigning them to it, and claiming that it is an "extension of this" and that it suffices as a form of art because it meets these criteria. But it's not a form of art as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't meet the one critical criteria of art: art stimulates creativity. Television programming does not. Someone decided what they were going to broadcast to you, how they were going to present it to you, and ultimately decided what you will like. It is programming. Writing and/or reading stimulates creativity and thought, because you have to fill in the blanks. As does music.

There is a completely different interaction that occurs with listening to music vs watching television. Completely different. Something like a TV show constructs reality for you. It is a mind trick, and while this is an amazing process, it is detrimental. Because there is only one reality, and it is this one. When you watch sufficient TV, you become delusional--but not in a significant "lose your ****" kind of way--because your brain struggles to parse what is real life and what is an artificial simulation. For example: no one who appears in network programming accurately reflects a person in real life. And you may think that "well I know that duh" but you don't really know that, because the human brain doesn't know that. It's very impressionable. Especially to kids, but even to adults.And most of all, there is no higher order thinking that occurs, because you don't have to fill in any blanks. Everything is given to you.

When/if western civilization crumbles, is it going to be remembered for a bunch of actors who played make-believe that they were surviving a zombie apocalypse? Jesus I sure hope not.

So feature films and photography are not art? If you believe this I am afraid i have nothing left to say.

(and incidentally, if you can't see that Walking Dead isn't REALLY about zombies, - AT ALL - then again, I will have to leave of this discussion)

How does this differ from any other artform?



Or decided what they hope you like.



Are you sure that you arn"t blaming certain issues that you might have on how much television you"ve been watching.

Well said. We humans need to veg out from time to time; it's in the very atoms and molecules that construct our being: from primitive man gathering round the fire to hear stories, to plays with production value to black and white silent films to tv shows to the internet. All are steps, evolutionary leaps we are making every day. I would argue that stories not only are not "pointless entertainment" but that stories are crucial to our happiness. They tap into our deepest emotions and desires. I can vicariously murder through stories, vicariously save the world, vicariously die a horrible death.

Yes, commercials make me physically ill: you do not have to watch them in this day and age, just download it commercial free, simple simple simple.

So, humble traveler: you don't watch movies, tv shows or read novels? I guess you also avoid all video games, you tube, radio, pod casts, yes? All are commercially driven and are "mindless entertainment." And, OF COURSE, goes without saying, really, but none of your internet time is spent on entertainment. All 100 percent educational purposes only.

This is getting off track. Just a bit. Also I don't really care for your style of arguing, either, because I'm not a troll. When dealing with trolls, it is fine to say "well if you don't understand X then all is lost on you" and drop the mic. Not the case here.

I think you kind of know that I'm onto something, but there's some resistance to what I'm proposing. Like the way you just spoke about the Walking Dead--I don't know if that was in jest or not or what the tone of that was, but if you were being serious, that's really one of the underlying problems. If you're claiming that it's deep, and that it's filled to the brim with subtext, and that it has all of the nuances that make it this wonderful work of art...you're killing me. Don't be one of those people. Because it doesn't matter whatsoever. THINK about what I'm actually saying, don't just try to fight it. There will always be more TV. Always. It never stops coming. It is a relentless 24/7 onslaught. As much as you like show X now, there will be another show Y that will be better than that one, and so on. And I don't know what it will all involve into, ultimately, but I'm concerned. And again, this cannot be overstated: it doesn't matter at all, but in a bad way. There are things that I do that don't particularly matter, sure, but they aren't setbacks. There's no detriment to me or society. Every moment that is spent obsessing or thinking about or watching television is a waste. And no it's not the only thing that is a waste, and I never said it was, but it's the topic of this thread, therefore it's getting singled out.

It's not an "all work and no play" tragedy for me that I don't own a TV or a box or whatever. It's not "play" in any sense of the word. It's doing absolutely nothing, is what it is, and completely ignoring your immediate environment. And to boot I think it does have negative physiological effects on the body (don't quote me on that.) It might. Anyway, being on my computer isn't much better I suppose? But wait ...it is...because I'm actively performing tasks and engaging with it bidirectionally. But I want to wean off of it too. It's a goal that I have.

It's just this thing in life that only has upside if you get it out of your life, somewhat simply put. You can't really get around that point by framing it as an art form. There are other, better art forms, so it's expendable.

So, you are saying, using your definition, that we should all abandon this site as it's impure, your writings are impure, this conversation is impure, because, we are all using fake names. This is all fake in one way or another. Even if it's to protect ourselves, it's still fake. Hmmm.


You honestly can't find art in anything on tv? Hell, even superbowl commercial can be highly artful. There are many paintings I personally think shouldn't be considered art, but because someone else uses it to express themselves, I cannot call it non-art!

I agree that these views of yours are highly one sided. No offense meant, but all art is fake. It's taking one thing and making it into another. Graphite into drawings. Pigment suspended in oil into paintings. Rock or clay into sculptures. It's all fake. If you look at a dinosaur sculpture, do you think, "oh, that's clay and paint shaped by a person" Or do you think, "Oh, that a tyranosaurus rex"? Is either true? Is either false? It's not really a Theropod carnivore. But it's also not just claw either.

This reality to many is also fake, if you believe it is created by observation/consciousness (which there are quantum theories of such). Our emotions are regulated by chemicals. We can take other chemicals and change our moods. That renders them fake. I could go on.

I'm going to take some eggs, cheese, onions, mushrooms, and spinach and make a fake omelet now. Be back soon.

You are not onto something, and asserting that I know this and am being disingenuous, is, well, disingenuous on your part.

You are taking the standard anti-TV rhetoric and treating it both as gospel and original - it is neither. Keep in mind that I do believe most, if not all, standard network television is garbage - hell, I have only watched 4 hours in the last 2 years: the academy awards. But you are the one speaking in absolutes, need I remind you.

Witness the title of this thread: "... all TV is Soul-Sucking"

Forgive me for saying, but that is a ridiculous and ignorant assertion.

And yes, I was serious about Walking Dead. The Zombies are a mere pretence, a trope: something that threatens and then utterly destroys civilization. It could have been anything, but it is all the more brilliant for choosing something that most would dismiss as bad TV horror tripe to examine the dichotomy of two conflicting world views and the human clashes that result in the struggle for power of these two incompatible factions: stay true to the mores of civilization vs throw out all the rules and do ANYTHING to survive. Heady, relevant, smart stuff.

I will not patronize you by listing any further ideas, tropes, themes or dramatic structures present in the Walking Dead. (partly I guess, because they will likely fall on deaf ears and I will set myself up even further for flaming )

Your position is absolute, and false only for this. You cannot say ALL of something - anything - is soul-sucking and expect to be able to back it up. Unless of course, you have seen it all, AND consider yourself enough of an authority that your views prevail over other's, de facto. Have you? Do you?

JBArk

NPR just did a show on this how most plays from 400-600 years ago were mostly about sex, cheating, day to day meanderings, drunken foolishness, etc. They were basically sitcoms. And vulgar too. Only a few exceptions were like Shakespear. That's why it's hard to find other plays from around the same era from other authors.

CORRECTION: I found the show and I meant after 400-600 years ago. After Shakespear's death. I remembered incorrectly as around the same time. Apologies.

Ummmmm, the renaissance knew a dearth of worthy playwrights?

"1588 Greene's Pandosto
1588 Marlowe's Dr. Faustus
1590 Spenser's Faerie Queen (1-3)
1590 Marlowe's The Jew of Malta
1591 Sidney'sAstrophil and Stella
1592 Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy
1592 Shake-speare's Henry VI Part I
1592 Shake-speare's Henry VI, Part II
1593 Shake-speare's Henry VI, Part III
1594 Greene's Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay
1594 Marlowe's Edward II
1594 Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus
1594 Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors
1594 Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew
1594 Shakespeare's Shakespeare'sTwo Gentlemen of Verona
1594 Shakespeare's Love's Labour's Lost
1595 Sidney's An Apologia for Poetrie
1595 Shake-speare's Romeo and Juliet
1595 Shake-speare's A Midsummer Night's Dream
1596 Shake-speare's The Merchant of Venice
1596 Spenser's Faerie Queen (4-6)
1597 Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I
1597 Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part II
1598 Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing
1598 Shakespeare's Henry V
1598 Jonson Every Man in his Humour
1599 Shake-speare's As You Like It
1599 Jonson Every Man out of his Humour
1600 Shake-speare's Julius Caesar
1600 Kemp's Nine Daies Wonder
1600 Dekker's Shoemaker's Holiday
1600 Jonson Cynthia's Revels
1601 Shakespeare's Richard II
1601 Jonson Poetaster
1600 Shakespeare's Richard III
1600 Shakespeare's Hamlet
1600 Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor
1602 Shakespeare's Twelfth Night
1602 Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well
1603 Jonson Sejanus
1604 Marston's The Malcontent
1604 Shake-speare's Troilus and Cressida
1604 Shake-speare's Measure for Measure
1604 Shake-speare's Othello
1605 Jonson Volpone
1605 Bacon's The Advancement of Learning
1606 Shake-speare's King Lear
1606 Shake-speare's Macbeth
1606 Shake-speare's Antony and Cleopatra
1606 Ben Jonson's Volpone
1607 Shakespeare's Coriolanus
1607 Beaumont and Fletcher Knight of the Burning Pestle
1607 Shake-speare's Timon of Athens
1607 Tourneur's The Revenger's Tragedy
1608 Shake-speare's Pericles
1609 Ben Jonson's The Silent Woman
1609 Beaumont & Fletcher's The Knight of the Burning Pestle
1610 Ben Jonson's The Alchemist
1610 Beaumont and Fletcher Philaster
1611 Shakespeare's Tempest
1611 Beaumont and Fletcher The Maid's Tragedy
1611 Beaumont and Fletcher A King and No King
1611 Shake-speare's Macbeth
1611 Ben Jonson's Catiline
1611 Shake-speare's The Winter's Tale
1612 Webster's The White Devil
1612 Shakespeare's Henry VIII
1612 Shakespeare's The Two Noble Kinsmen
1613 Beaumont and Fletcher The Scornful Lady
1614 Jonson's Bartholomew Fayre
1614 Webster's Duchess of Malfi
1614 Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World
1616 Ben Jonson's Workes published in folio
1618 Beaumont and Fletcher The Humorous Lieutenant
1623 Publication of Shakespeare's First Folio
1624 Thomas Middleton A Game at Chess"

Just to list a few... (and only the English ones)

JBArk

Yes, I remembered the NPR show wrong. Plays from after 400-600 years ago. Very crucial information I miss remembered by accident. I read your post and thought, non of that coincides with what I heard, then I re-read my post, looked up the show I mentioned, and found my mistake. I'll go fix it now.

And here is the NPR show I mentioned. You can listen to the Studio 360 show broadcast on it too. It's pretty interesting

Okay well...we can put this to rest. I don't like the direction this went in. I could make a rebuttal, and then so would you, and it would get nowhere. I am being very absolute, and I sort of explained why, at one point. But just know that I partly come from a place of concern, not just to "flame." I meant well, and do mean well. I think it has net negative effect. But this is the Nexus after all! I propose that you should just abstain from watching any of that stuff for a period of time, as a sort of trial run. Give it 30 days, let's say. If you can restrain yourself from all the "dichotomies" and "incompatible factions," that is.

I might give House of cards a viewing. I remember seeing the original version and it was a right rollicking watch as far as i remember.

That's actually one I haven't seen yet. Soon.

Also, I forgot to put Twin Peaks on the list. Groundbreaking TV, way ahead of its time, and while in retrospect some may say it was "commercial", at the time it was the first of its kind, ushering in whole new era of TV and proving to the studio execs that people would flock to oddness and risk taking.

David Lynch is one of my heros, in filmmaking and TV. Watch "On the Air", if you can find it. Brilliant. TV.

JBArk

You're good. Too good. But seriously...enough trolling. I get it.

I think JBark did a good job showing you the fallacy of thinking in absolutes. Or, to quote Obi Wan: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

I haven't watched tv for years... and look at me! Lonely and stupid as sith.

The Sith aren't stupid, they're awesome. They built the Death Star, two of them: that takes some engeneering prowess.

What a perfect movie to go along with this thread! For those who don't know of this movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJC4R1uXDaE

Scared the crap outta me when I watched this as a kid!