Personally, I think there's something valid in the argument. Art comes when we look at some of the fundamental questions of human existence. FRIENDS was often a hoot, but I don't know that I'd call it art. It was entertainment, a distraction. LOST on the other hand made one contemplate issues of fate vs. free will and the nature of good and evil.
6 comments:
Really enjoyed that article. Thanks for posting it.
There are a handful of shows that will be talked about for a while. Twilight Zone was one. Star Trek, of course and now LOST. It's been a few days and my wife and I are still mulling over various aspects of it. It gives me a throbbing headache behind my left eye if I think too much about it for long periods of time, though. If I start inexplicably bleeding from a small area on my neck, I'll at least know what to expect in 6 years. Upside!
This reminds me of an argument I had with a high school English teacher once upon a time. He took the position that television shows and films were not in the same artful realm as novels and poetry, and I disagreed. At that time, I would have been obsessed with Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere on the television side and Dreamchild, a beautiful and little-known film that I was lucky enough to watch on HBO.
I remember arguing that good television and film was made possible only when several forms of artistry (acting, cinematography, music composition, lighting, etc.) combined in an affecting manner. My teacher didn't buy my argument.
I guess I still feel pretty much the same way about television and film as art and would make the same argument today. But I would now add that in order for either genre to ascend from the level of entertainment to art, there would have to be a "head artist" - usually a director - who has a vision and is able to communicate that vision to his audience effectively and affectingly.
By this definition, I think that I would call LOST an artful television show. The writing, for instance, provided us with many moments of symmetry, flashbacks, and foreshadowing. And the characters were well-rounded and real to us. The story had thematic elements which were borne out by the actions of the characters. And all of this stuff was backed up by the strong performances of the actors, and the creativity and passion of the show's musical composer and even by the professionalism and expertise of the lighting guys and gals. And behind all of that, we had Darlton, our artist(s), directing things.
Throughout LOST's run and my visits to various fan forums, I've often had the thought that we fans have been explicating the show much in the same way that lit. professers asked us to explicate poetry during school. We have written term papers on this show all over the internet, backing up our assertions with quotations and screenshots and even with background research. LOST, more than any other show I can think of, turned us all into a bunch of English majors. So, yeah. I think that LOST was art.
Agreed, Krisin. I think it's snobbery more than legitimate art criticism to say a medium as a whole cannot be artful. Am sure that there were those who decried the print as not being as legitimate as oral tradition when we were going from hunter-gatherers to a loose collection of nation-states, even. As long as the product - be it a painting or 22 minutes of television - conveys some deeper meaning, I think the argument is there that it's art. Then reasonable people can disagree reasonably whether LOST is art vs. GREY'S ANATOMY being 'just' entertainment, or something like that.
McDreamy = Art. Yeah baby!
OMG, I wonder how he's going to recover after being shot by the husband of that woman that the hospital pulled the plug on because of her DNR order!!
Post a Comment