Here’s the deal, we all watch TV and regardless if we think so or not we are constantly criticizing the programs we watch. Even those of you who sit and watch like zombies retain some sort of critique by enjoying the program or not. I’m not saying every time I sit down to watch TV I have my critical hat on, but after starting my TV Criticism class this semester, I’ve already picked up on how dense this subject, and watching TV, can be. Though I am new at this (blogging and being a TV critic) I hope to engage, entertain, and offer worthy insights on the appreciation of TV and what it takes to be a useful critic. In this first blog I hope to articulate my goals for participating in TV criticism, what my views and relationships to TV is as an object of study, and how I am going to convey this information to you as my readers.
My goals as a critic are simple, to learn right alongside everyone else. I’ve recently realized that being a TV critic does not mean having to state just how bad or good a TV program is, but to fully analyze every detail. From the lighting to the casting, everything needs to be considered. Because I am so new at this I do not expect to have the brightest and best arguments, but to be able to improve as the semester moves forward on being a productive TV critic is obviously a main goal. Just like O’Donnell (2007) states, “Criticism is the practice of informed judgment through which a person understands, evaluates, and communicates to others the what, how, and why something is considered to be of quality (18). Likewise, Sillars and Gronbeck (2001) define communication criticism as, “A critic [that] makes an argument that describes, interprets, or evaluates the messages to which people are exposed in public or collective ways” (5). I’m not here to tell everyone who is right and who is wrong, but to grasp the concepts of the goal of criticism that O’Donnell, Sillars and Gronbeck laid out for their readers.
At this point, my view and relationship to television as an object of study is concerned with Corner (1999), and exactly why television is worthy of being studied. Corner states, “[TV] has completely changed the nature of the modern entertainment industry,” and I am interested in finding out why. Also, a relationship I intend to study is the effects of television on our society and why Butler (2002) believes TV has contributed to a decline of values in our country (7). For example, one of my favorite TV shows is Sex and the City. Though I did not start watching the show until after the series ended, I quickly learned what all the hype was about when the show was newly airing. When it first came to TV I did not understand why it was so special and why all single women needed to start drinking cosmopolitans and disregard any ‘old school’ female role. I thought it was ridiculous how anyone could be so influenced by a fictional TV show. Then many years later I started watching the reruns of the show and soon found myself being a cosmopolitan drinking, Mr. Big hating woman that was driven to be anything but a house wife to be. I could not believe how influenced I quickly became with this show and have been driven ever since to examine our society and how TV is ever so prevalent in our lives as influences.
Though I laugh and judge myself and others for letting TV affect what we want out of life and our goals, it is a huge part of our culture. Whether I like it or not I WILL be influenced by The Office, Law and Order, and The Soup, it is just up to us as critical viewers to decide how we want to interpret the information retained. Brundson (1993) brings up three categories of relationship between the critic and viewer that I find to be very important to understand now that I am (and hopefully now you) are a conscious TV critic. I also intend to relate information to you as readers through the understanding of these three relationships. Brundson defines the first relationship, transparent, as, “Characteristic of the utopian,” or that the critic and viewer are on the same side against the other (312). Next, hegemonic, “involves differentiation”, or the critics and viewers are on separate sides and have different views (313). Lastly there is fragmented which is,” the possibility that there is no necessary relationship between the two categories” (314). All interpretations fit into one of these relationships so I believe it is important to understand each and be conscious of them as we watch a program!
I hope that this has given all of you some insight to who I am as a TV critic and viewer. It is important to me that we learn as we go, and work together to understand one another’s views on the best and worst of shows. I promise to expand my viewing from shows like Friends, Gossip Girl, and Paris Hilton’s My New BFF to things like Whale Wars and programs on the History Channel in hopes to engage all sorts of TV views. I also strive to find out what you think about my thoughts and vice versa so that we can expand each other’s views and opinions without taking our own interpretation or others for granted!
References
Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.
Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.
Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
