Advertisement

The Television Medium

  • Ted Nannicelli
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter offers a critical overview of philosophical debates concerning the nature of the television medium, television’s art status, and television’s aesthetic value.

Keywords

Television aesthetics Artistic value Aesthetic value Art medium 

Bibliography

  1. Adorno, T.W. Spring 1954. How to Look at Television. The Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television 8 (3): 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, Clive. 1914. Art. New York: Frederick A. Stokes.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, James, and Nicki Strange, eds. 2011. Television as Digital Media. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bianculli, David. 2016. The Platinum Age of Television. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchet, Robert, and Margrethe Bruun Vaage. Winter 2012. Don, Peggy, and Other Fictional Friends? Engaging with Characters in Television Series. Projections: The Journal for Movies and Mind 6 (2): 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budd, Malcolm. 2008. Aesthetic Essence. In Aesthetic Essays, 31–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullough, Edward. 1912. ‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle. British Journal of Psychology 5 (2): 87–118.Google Scholar
  8. Cardwell, Sarah. Spring 2006. Television Aesthetics. Critical Studies in Television 1 (1): 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2013. Television Aesthetics: Stylistic Analysis and Beyond. In Television Aesthetics and Style, ed. Jason Jacobs and Steven Peacock, 23–44. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  10. Carroll, Noël. 2001a. Art, Practice, Narrative. In Beyond Aesthetics, 63–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2001b. Identifying Art. In Beyond Aesthetics, 75–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2003. TV and Film: A Philosophical Perspective. In Engaging the Moving Image, 265–280. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2010a. Art, Creativity, and Tradition. In Art in Three Dimensions, 53–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2010b. The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Literature, and Moral Knowledge. In Art in Three Dimensions, 201–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Caughie, John. 2008. Telephilia and Distraction: Terms of Engagement. Journal of British Cinema and Television 3 (1): 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cavell, Stanley. Fall 1982. The Fact of Television. Daedalus 111: 75–96.Google Scholar
  17. Creeber, Glen. 2013. Small Screen Aesthetics: From Television to the Internet. London: British Film Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies, David. 2004. Art as Performance. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickie, George. 1964. The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (1): 56–65.Google Scholar
  20. Dowling, Christopher. 2010. The Aesthetics of Daily Life. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (3): 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellis, John. 1992. Visible Fictions, Revised ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Gaut, Berys. 2010. A Philosophy of Cinematic Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2012. Replies to Ponech, Curran, and Allen. British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (2): 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geraghty, Christine. 2003. Aesthetics and Quality in Popular Television Drama. International Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gracyk, Theodore. 2007. Listening to Popular Music, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Led Zeppelin. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guyer, Paul. 1997. Kant and the Claims of Taste. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hassoun, Dan. 2014. Tracing Attentions: Toward an Analysis of Simultaneous Media Use. Television & New Media 15 (4): 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hills, Matt. 2011. Television Aesthetics: A Pre-Structuralist Danger? Journal of British Cinema and Television 8 (1): 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Ed. Gunzelin Schmid Noerr and Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Irvin, Sherri. 2008. The Pervasiveness of the Aesthetic in Ordinary Experience. British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (1): 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs, Jason. 2001. Issues of Judgement and Value in Television Studies. International Journal of Cultural Studies 4 (4): 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 2006. Television Aesthetics: An Infantile Disorder. Journal of British Cinema and Television 3 (1): 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2011. Television, Interrupted: Pollution or Aesthetic? In Television as Digital Media, ed. James Bennett and Nicki Strange, 255–280. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jameson, Fredric. Winter 1979. Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture. Social Text 1: 130–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leddy, Tom. 2005. The Nature of Everyday Aesthetics. In The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, ed. Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith, 3–22. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Levinson, Jerrold. 1990a. Defining Art Historically. In Music, Art, and Metaphysics, 3–25. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 1990b. Refining Art Historically. In Music, Art, and Metaphysics, 37–59. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lotz, Amanda D. 2007. The Revolution Will Be Televised. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, Brett. 2014. Difficult Men: Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  40. Nannicelli, Ted. Summer 2016. In Defence of the Objectivity of Evaluative Television Criticism. Screen 57 (2): 124–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. ———. 2017. Appreciating the Art of Television: A Philosophical Perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Nannicelli, Ted, and Malcolm Turvey. 2016. Against ‘Post-Cinema’. Cinéma & Cie: International Film Studies Journal 26 (27. (Spring/Fall): 33–44.Google Scholar
  43. Nehamas, Alexander. 1988. Plato and the Mass Media. The Monist 71 (2): 214–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Newcomb, Horace. 1974. TV: The Liveliest Art. Garden City: Anchor Books/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  45. Newman, Michael Z., and Elana Levine. 2012. Legitimating Television. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nussbaum, Emily. 2009. When TV Became Art. New York Magazine. December 4. http://nymag.com/arts/all/aughts/62513/
  47. Scruton, Roger. 2007. In Search of the Aesthetic. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (3): 232–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ———. Summer 2010. Hiding Behind the Screen. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society 28: 48–60.Google Scholar
  49. Silman, Anna. 2014. The Best of This Week’s Mad Men Recaps: ‘The Strategy.’ Vulture.com. May 20. Available at http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/best-mad-men-recaps-the-strategy.html. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  50. Silverstone, Roger. 1994. Television and Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Spigel, Lynn, and Jan Olsen, eds. 2004. Television After TV. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stolnitz, Jerome. 1960. Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism: A Critical Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  53. Thorburn, David. 1987. Television as an Aesthetic Medium. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4 (2): 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner, Graeme, and Jinna Tay, eds. 2009. Television Studies After TV. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Turvey, Malcolm. ‘Familiarity Breeds Contempt’: Why Fascination, Rather Than Repeat Exposure, Explains the Appeal of Antiheros on Television. In Screening Characters, ed. Johannes Riis and Aaron Taylor. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  56. Zillman, Dolf. 1996. The Psychology of Suspense in Dramatic Exposition. In Suspense: Conceptualizations, Theoretical Analyses, and Empirical Explorations, ed. Peter Vorderer, Hans J. Wulff, and Mike Friedrichsen, 199–232. Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted Nannicelli
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations