A Response to Sarah's Question: Television as an Art Form

In her blog Sarah asked: What makes bad art bad? What makes bad TV bad?  Is it fair for me to say that television should have a place with art when it comes to philosophy?

I think a lot of people would classify television and the work surrounding television in the "non-art" category. I, however, do not agree with that assertion. I think television, much like film is a true and modern art form. I do not think that simply paintings and sculptures and poetry are our last vestige of art. As the world changes to become more technological and mechanical, so do simple and sometimes seemingly unchangeable things. As years went by after Plato and Aristotle and other great philosophers, time changed the view of art and what it was. Film and television provide entertainment, stir up emotion, convey emotion, and are, in some people’s minds, destroying and distracting society. These are all conditions of definitions of art that we have read and studied before. In the same sense, television can be classified as bad or good. It also is impossible to define. I think this is one of the few commonalities between all art whether that mean paintings, sculptures, literature, television, film, or fashion, that they are so incredibly hard to define and pin down. If I like a television show and you do not, does that make me wrong or you wrong? Who gets to determine if it is a good piece of television art or a bad one? Another commonality, in my opinion, is that there is some level of skill involved. Creating television absolutely involves some type of skill and ability so as to not make the television show or the idea behind look completely amateurish and poorly done. Television is absolutely an art form from every standpoint but again it begs the question, can you ever define it as good or bad?