TV vs. Art

We had an interesting discussion in class the other day about the difference between watching television and looking at a piece of art. Some say that television has desensitised us to really looking at a piece of art and trying to understand what is going on, what it is saying to us and what the artist is trying to say to us. I think their basic arguement was that art, in the traditional sense, has more substance to it than modern day things like television or movies.

It is true that before the invention of things like the television or movies, art was a form of entertainment. Paintings, more often than sculpture, told a story and people used to spend more than a few seconds looking at a piece of art. I heard that the average person only looks at piece of art for something like 5 seconds. I have to say from an artist point of view (and especially sense I always try to tell a story with my pieces) it is some what of a disappointing statistic. They also argued that everything is given to you in a TV show. The plot, the story, the characters, everything is laid out for you and all you have to do is sit there and look at it.

Well, I have to disagree with most of their arguements. Maybe it is because I like TV and movies so much, but I think that there are shows and movies that are works of art in themselves. Its true that the artistic and intellectual range of television shows is vast considering we have things like Flavor of Love or Date my Mom and then we have shows like Lost or House. But, it is the shows like Lost or House that support my arguement. Shows like those make you think and in the case of Lost, you have to see it from the beginning or you will be completely and utterly.. well, lost.

So, I think to say that people don't pay attention to art because of television is a slightly ignorant comment. Because there are in fact the Flavor of Loves in the art world. There are works that make you think and there are works where all of the information is given to you.


Take, for example, Clyfford Still and Chris Jordon. Jordan is a contemporary artist who makes photomanipulations based on statistics he gathers from research. His pieces are what they are, straight foward and to the point. The titled and description for each of his pieces tells the viewer exactly what they are looking at (I'm not nessessarily saying he's the Flavor of Love of art but, kind of). Still, on the other hand was as mysterious as his paintings. He never spoke about what they meant and his work is left to art experts to try and interpret.


Still, Untitled
Jordan, Barbie Dolls

I don't think that art is in any way diminished by television because the definition of the word is completely subjective. I believe that some things on television and some movies are great works of art. They are made by creative writers, directors and performed by brilliant actors. I think what we have in present time is just more art forms to embrace.