Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    It's chicken-or-the-egg. Each reflects the other in a synergistic
    fashion.
    
    --- jerry

    nicolodian has your old show's believe it or not.
                                                              
    re:your question -
    either or depending on where the artist is operating from.

    
    art reflects life
    life reflects trash

    trash can be art
    

    Art? What art?
    
    On
    Dynasty???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    
    I don't think the shows have changed at all, except for being in
    color. They do what Hollywood does best; create fantasy.
    
    Fantasy vice cops, fantasy yuppie lawyers, fantasy rich people.
    
    These shows relect fashion, not life.
    
    -roger
    
    

By all means, art reflects life. 

Of course, .0 is talking about TV shows. By no stretch of the
imagination can you classify them as 'art'. No matter, in their own
highly distorted way, they still reflect life. 

Does life reflect art? No. Most people wouldn't know 'art' if it hit
them in the face. Most others don't care. Most of those who care
can't do much about anything. That's why there are struggling,
starving artists. 

Unfortunately, TV is not art, so it does impact life. Substantially.

-- Ron 

    	A friend of mine recently said:


    	"Art is anything you can't explain".  ;-)


    Brian

    
    
    When you take a look at the TV shows over the past years, and even
    the present ones, you tend to see that the shows reflect the attitudes
    of society, social norms, etc.
    
    Although there is really no comparison ..... look at a show like
    Lucy and then something like the Roseanne Barr show.  Each reflects
    a lot of the social and family values of the particular time period
    that each is set in.
    
    To the question ..... I say both of them.  Pin me down to one and
    I would have to say that life reflects itself in art.

    TV is entertainment.....it reflects what the public currently finds
    entertaining be it good or bad....its slices of life....not necessarily
    reality.  It is recognizable as contemporary.  TV is meant to appeal
    to the masses to survive in the ratings.  Old shows bring out
    sentiments and fond memories.  
    
    Art on the other hand is more personal, it is the the artists impressions,
    feelings, sometimes abstract, sometimes obtuse, but usually withstands 
    time.  Artists doesn't focus on mass appeal or even strive for it.  
    Art is more intellectual.
    
    TV and movies are sensual stories for escaping. Perhaps its an artform.
    
    So the original question may best be separted into two:
    
    1) Does TV reflect current lifestyles?
    
    2) Does art reflect .....
    
    
    bring out emotions 

If you go and look at some of those late 50's-early 60's shows (many of
which run today on the Nickelodeon cable channel), you'll find that they
are perhaps even less connected with reality than shows like Dynasty
and Miami Vice are today.

But I think this is an "apples and oranges" comparison.  Look instead at
today's popular sitcoms: Roseanne, Cosby, etc.  I don't think much has
really changed.

				Steve

    
.9>    Art on the other hand is more personal, it is the the artists impressions,
.9>    feelings, sometimes abstract, sometimes obtuse, but usually withstands 
.9>    time.  Artists doesn't focus on mass appeal or even strive for it.  
.9>    Art is more intellectual.

	Yes and no:  this is (unfortunately) a widespread conception of what
	art is.  It is true that "good" art usually withstands the test of
	time, but this is not always the case, consider performance art for
	example. (especially in the days before film/tape)  However, the
	definition of "good" art must be distinguished from the definition of
	art. There are different types of artists just as there are different 
	types of art.  Some artists do strive for mass appeal, some don't.

	I feel that art is anything that is a manifestation of creativity.
	Of course, the line gets fuzzy sometimes. (is programming an art, or 
	just problem solving? - I don't know, sometimes one, sometimes the 
	other, sometimes both)  I think most people will agree that things
	such as bridges (the golden gate) can be art.  That is to say that art
	can be useful or entertaining; it doesn't just have to sit around and
	"be" art.


.9>    TV and movies are sensual stories for escaping. Perhaps its an artform.
 
	Ok, I agree - but if TV is an artform, then the shows are art. (not
	always, or even often, "good" art, but art nonetheless.)  And let us
	not forget the actors and actresses, who are also artists.


	I would have to say that TV is art, and it does reflect current
	society.  It's not necessarily a realistic reflection, but there
	is a strong tradition in art to distort and exaggerate images and 
	ideas so that they can be seen from other viewpoints.  In addition, 
	given its purpose of entertainment, it seems appropriate that TV 
	presents somewhat fantastic things.  I mean, who would want to sit 
	around and watch show about everyday life - we LIVE that every day! :*]

	This is not to say that I agree and enjoy all of television.  But 
	television is only a reflection [there's that word again] of what 
	people want to see - if people didn't want to watch the stuff, the
	networks would have to change the shows.  (Actually, this change is
	already in progress; networks' ratings are declining as people switch 
	to watching the shows they like on cable.)


	Finally, ["aaahhhh," you say, "he's almost done"]  I just want to say 
	again that art, in *all* it's forms, is not just for intellectuals.
	Get out there and wade right in - there's enough of it around (even
	excluding the bad stuff) that everyone ought to be able to find
	*something* they like!  
	


	Thinking out loud,

	>>AL<<

RE: .7

>    	"Art is anything you can't explain".  ;-)

If you buy that, than this is final proof that commercial TV (at
least, the way we know and love it) is not art :-). 

-- Ron 

    I agree with Al (.11). People have a tendency to claim that
    anything they think is lousy is "not art". It may not be
    High Art, but it's still art.
    
    I agree that tv shows haven't *really* changed all that much.
    I recall 10 or so years ago catching an episode of LAVERNE AND
    SHIRLEY, and thinking that it was essentially a clone of I LOVE
    LUCY. Not nearly as well done, but still essentially the same.
    
    For good or ill, society's values have changed, and so has tv.
    
    But it still bears the same relationship to life now as it did
    then.
    
    --- jerry

    Could I question the continued us of the term reality in this topic?.
    
    How exactly are the boundaries being drawn between reality and its
    other. As we are surrounded by an ever more diverse play of images
    which reference anything they can lay their hands on, including
    each other, reality presumably becomes harder to define - is such
    a state of hyper-reality such a bad thing.
    
    0. seems to have answered their own question with the title of the
    topic which could also read: The Times: Changing With The TV Shows
    
    We've just started to get Roseanne in the UK, and I think it is
    really good.
    
    John

    
.14>    How exactly are the boundaries being drawn between reality and its
.14>    other. As we are surrounded by an ever more diverse play of images
.14>    which reference anything they can lay their hands on, including
.14>    each other, reality presumably becomes harder to define - is such
.14>    a state of hyper-reality such a bad thing.
    

	Could you clarify what you are trying to say here?  I don't know
	about anyone else, but you lost me.  :*]

	Boundaries between reality's what and its other what?  
	How are images laying hands on things?
	Do you have any specific images in mind?
	How do *you* define reality?
	And what do you mean by hyper-reality?


	Thanks,

	>>AL<<

    Has anyone watched Miami Vice? People get blown away left and right
    I watched "In The Heat of The Night" last night. I saw a decaying
    body being dug out of a ditch and a hanging body! Why?
    
    Kate
     

    RE: 15
    
    Sorry AL, I was just being playful. A comedian in Scotland once
    said "if there's anything in my act you don't understand, please
    regard it as significant". And why not?.
    
    In answer to your questions.
    
    1. In language concepts are based on straight oppositions such as
    good/evil day/night or on their difference to other concepts eg.
    a table is a table  by virtue of not being a chair and
    not because a table has any intrinsic property that makes it a table.
    Lots of different things can be (there's that word again) tables.
    When it comes to a big concept like reality I find it difficult
    to think another one that has any real(?) use - assuming we want
    concepts to be useful in the first place.
    
    2. Advertising and its plunder/borrowing/use/recycling/realisation
    of filmic images. Also Laverne and Shirley.
    
    3. None of the above
    
    4. I think that would be invidious, don't you?.
    
    5. There's a geezer called Bauldrillard, who incidentally wrote
    an awful book about America, who argues from time to time that we
    are living in a period of hyper-reality. This is a state in which
    it is impossible to find the origin of an image because they all
    become tainted by other images. 
                                     
    AL, could you explain what the signifier :*] means. Should I regard
    it as significant?.
    
    John
    
    
    
    
    
    
     

    Re: 17

	first of all, :*] is just another variation on the smiley-face
	theme.  In this case, I put it in 'cause I wanted you to know 
	that I was honestly curious, as opposed to say, starting a
	knock-down, drag-out argument.  Other than that, it's not 
	particularily significant.


>    said "if there's anything in my act you don't understand, please
>    regard it as significant". And why not?.

	heh heh heh - what a great line!  (of course, I could've quoted
	this back at you instead of explaining my smily-face ( :*] )

    
>    In answer to your questions.
>    
>    1. In language concepts are based on straight oppositions such as
>    good/evil day/night or on their difference to other concepts eg.
>    a table is a table  by virtue of not being a chair and
>    not because a table has any intrinsic property that makes it a table.
>    Lots of different things can be (there's that word again) tables.
>    When it comes to a big concept like reality I find it difficult
>    to think another one that has any real(?) use - assuming we want
>    concepts to be useful in the first place.

	This is an interesting theory of language, although it has the
	drawback that everything is defined in a negative sense, which,
	in the end, means that nothing is defined at all.  Of course, this 
	may be its intent.    In addition, there are other schools of thought 
	which hold that there are indeed basic ideals such as "tableness" that 
	exist apart from physical examples of them.  But that's neither here
	nor there, and rather than argue philosophy or metaphysics, why don't 
	we just leave it where it is (wherever that is :*] ).


>    2. Advertising and its plunder/borrowing/use/recycling/realisation
>    of filmic images. Also Laverne and Shirley.
>    
>    3. None of the above
	
	Ok, so you were mainly referring to television images in general,
	right?    


>    4. I think that would be invidious, don't you?.

	No, not really.  I was just interested in knowing if you had any
	particular definition of or views on the nature of reality.  
	(another bit of philosophy/metaphysics)  I wouldn't think that that
	would be too volatile a subject, but I could be wrong...


>    5. There's a geezer called Bauldrillard, who incidentally wrote
>    an awful book about America, who argues from time to time that we
>    are living in a period of hyper-reality. This is a state in which
>    it is impossible to find the origin of an image because they all
>    become tainted by other images. 
    
	Hmmmmm....possibly true, especially in television and its recycled
	and regurgitated images.
    

	Thanks for the clarification, John.

	>>AL<<	     

    re: .16
    
    I'm not sure what your question is when you ask "Why?", Kate.
    Without any value judgement implied here, it seems to me that
    the violence that has always been a part of human existence
    has also always been a part of theater.  It appears that we, 
    as a race, approve of the presentation of violence in our
    art and/or entertainment forms.
    
    Steve

      The deffinition of art in my Webster's (hey, somebody had to look
      it up, you all knew it would happen ;*)) allows TV shows to
      qualify.

      art := "the ability of man to create things apart from nature"

      I would argue that more than a few commercials are actually art.
      The Levi's blues commercials come to mind as do several others.

      I happen to like opera (at least some of it). Most people I know
      think it stinks. The thrill of hearing a soprano knock out the
      aria in the end of the first act of La Traviata sends chills down
      my spine. Most of you would probably say it was like fingernails
      on a blackboard. Is it art because I like it or not art because
      you don't? Does something have to be liked to be art?

      In the movie "year of living dangerously" two photographers are
      discussing the difference between art and pornography in the
      depiction of nude women. "if it's fuzzy, it's art, if it's sharp
      focus, it's pornography". And I was always taught you should color
      between the lines. liesl

    
    One does not "knock out" an aria.
    
    

RE: .20:

The dictionary definition for 'art'

      art := "the ability of man to create things apart from nature"

is very broad and includes such things as the scribbling with a
knife tip in hard cookies (I understand Picasso once did that, with
an ensuing public debate as to whether that was 'art'). 

The 'usual' (whatever **that** means) definition also calls for an
element of inventiveness, the creation of something unique, some
comment on the human situation. I've seen several differently worded
definitions - can't recall the sources or the exact language. Under
these definitions, Picasso's after-dinner scribblings were NOT art. 

Under these definitions, 99.99998% (give or take a few percentage
points) of commercial TV is not art, just as car tires, even when
turned out by human hand, are not art. 

All opera I know, definitely is 'art', whether you or I like it or
not. For example, right now I am watching (over my shoulder) the
Arena Di Verona Production of Turandot. I am happy I borrowed the
disc from a friend rather than shell out the 55 bucks, because I
liked the Met production much better. 

Is the Arena Di Verona production not art, just because **I** don't
enjoy it? No. As long as it satisfies the definition (human
creativity, inventiveness, uniqueness), it is art, regardless of
appreciation by the environment. 

As to pornography, much of it **is**, indeed, 'art'. Again, makes no
difference whether you or I like it or not. 

All IMHO, of course. 

-- Ron

    RE: 18
    
    AL, thanks for clarifying the symbol. I wasn't trying to start a
    knock down, drag out argument, honest AL. My face is set purely
    :*] too.
    
    I agree, there are plenty of other conferences on which to wax
    metaphysical.
    
    Televisual images are rather popular with so-called postmodern
    theorists such as Bauldrillard. They seem to cause most
    excitement/resentment when they attempt to use TV as a basis fo
    theorising about society. For Baulidrillard, America is one long
    TV show. He was quite fascinated in a rather naive way with your
    former president's earlier career. I do like his idea that in the
    face of a bombardment of recycled/regurgitated images that attempt
    to manipulate them, the masses have the fatal strategy of inertia.
    That is, they just ignore it. Depressing politics but fun philosophy,
    I'd say.
    
    I'm still working on a definition of reality, but think it is best
    conceived in a fairly localised manner in the first instance - that
    people find themselves in fairly limited networks of interpersonal
    relationships that constitute one form of reality. Of course in
    this (post?)modern world, even those fairly small networks are
    influenced by larger structures such as the state, the media,
    corporations etc. I think it is impossible to use a grand theory
    of society or to have an informed grasp of the present or reality
    in general. ( That was a bit metaphysical, I guess.)
    
    Ask me something easier about British TV, please AL.
                                            
    Regards,
    
    
    Evans j.
    
    
    
    
    

    I don't know if *one* knocks out an aria, but I've known sopranos who
    could.
    
    In aethetics, the branch of philosophy concerned with art, what makes
    something art or not. This question is important, because there are
    obviously things that *aren't* art, but many people will try to
    discount art they don't like by saying it's not art.
    
    There's often a lively debate about what makes something art (note --
    "lively debate" is the polite way to say "donnybrook," "flame war,"
    "shouting match," etc). The usual compromise position, which no one is
    really happy with, but most people will agree to as a way to end the
    lively debate is that if one person says it's art, it's art. It may not
    be *good* art, it might be really lousy art, but it is art.
    
    	Jon

    re:.22
    
    The trouble then becomes *who* gets to decide whether a particular
    work is "inventive" or "unique". Just taking a look at some of the
    discussion in the MOVIES conference, for example, one can see that
    what one person considers "inventive", another person calls "more
    of the same old dreck".
    
    Taking the definition from another dictionary (AHD):
    
    	� 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or
    	counteract the work of nature. 2. The conscious
    	production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
    	movements, or other elements in a manner that affects
    	the sense of beauty; specifically, the production
    	of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium... �
    
    Note that it says "affects the sense of beauty", but doesn't say
    it has to affect it *positively*. If it did, then I'd argue
    whether "Guernica" was a work of art.
    
    --- jerry

RE: .25
    
>    The trouble then becomes *who* gets to decide whether a particular
>    work is "inventive" or "unique".

Which is exactly why you see all those drawn out discussions about
'what is Art'. This is to be expected any time you are trying to 
precisely define an inherently subjective notion: Art, Love, Beauty 
etc. etc..

As to the AHD dictionary definition, just like the Webster one, it's
too broad. "specifically, the production of the beautiful in a
graphic or plastic medium..." could easily apply to some of the
Lenox soup plates. Beautiful as they are, they are produced by the
thousands in an industrial process. Are they 'Art'?

-- Ron

    
    
    tv shows: changing with the times.....
    
    well....i guess they're changing but not quick enough for me.
    
	example:    the bill cosby show has the oldest daughter
    married by 21!....not much different from the old days...and 
    certainly not what i think is an intelligent thing to do at the
    tender and relatively undeveloped age of 21.
    and by 23 she had children!....not much of a change from the
    old days...."get married, settle down, have children...and be
    quick about it!"
    
    i don't watch much mass-produced (a double entendre!) television
    but i catch a few shows occasionally and it SEEMS as though they
    still espouse;....get married, divorce is bad, too bad for the children
    of divorced parents, hate your ex, single is lonely...etc....
    
    not much of a change from the past.
    
    a commercial on tv recently;
    	older woman: "i use xxx cleaner and my husband is so happy with
    me!...and i've taught my daughter to use xxx cleaner so her husband
    can be happy with her!"
    	daughter: "yes, my mom taught me the value of using xxx cleaner
    so my husband will know what a good little house wife i am!...and
    WHEN MY DAUGHTER GETS MARRIED...she'll use xxx cleaner, too, so
    her husband will have a good housewife, too"
    
    so...ladies....make sure you clean house for your husbands so they'll
    know they have good housewives....
    
    and make sure you tell your children that  THEY WILL GET MARRIED
    and if they are little girls make sure you tell them to clean their
    houses real nice for their husbands.....
    
    i think this is irrisponsible advertising.
    
    

    If these types of ad's did'nt sell product's,they would'nt
    be on the air.Someone believe's them,obviously.Is this
    irresponsible advertising or irresponsible viewer's?Same
    goes for lame T.V.show's.Nicer packaging,same product as
    always.

    The latest _Rolling Stone_ took a look at the upcoming season and
    discovered new trends -- single dads and father/son relationships.  
    Something like 9 out of 13 shows feature one or both.

    Well, I like it because it encourages the concept of the father as a
    care-giver.  Whether or not he's the sole care-giver, this is a good
    thing.  Since we have women moving into traditionally male functions, 
    I like to see men moving into traditionally female functions.  Of
    course, it would be nice if the men were *credible* care-givers.  One
    of the reasons father-son relationships are a subject of sitcoms is
    that men aren't expected to be good at care-giving.  A father
    floundering with the task of coping with his kid(s) has got to be
    funny, right?  (A mother dealing with kids is just too ordinary to be
    funny, you know, so it's not worth developing....)

    This single-father trend doesn't necessarily reflect any relaxation of
    gender roles.  As I remember, single dads have been a staple of TV
    sitcoms since the mid-'60s.  Some that come (unpleasantly) to mind:
    "Family Affair", "The Courtship of Eddie's Father", "My Three Sons".
    
    I see them as a way to avoid sexual issues more than anything else. 
    
    Ray