The Nature Of Quality And The Categories Of Quality Television - Essay Example

?The nature of quality and the categories of ‘quality’ television The idea of ‘quality’ television is almost an elusive concept that is defined and redefined through cultural shifts and changes. The initial discovery that must be made in discussing ‘quality’ television is in identifying why programs are made and how they are determined to be of value. Value is about finances, cultural importance, and artistic importance. However, it is financial value that must first be addressed to then move towards addressing the more esoteric values. Quality is determined by who is defining the concept. Cultural changes and shifts will also affect the concept of quality. Through an exploration of the concept of family in television, as an example, an understanding of how culture is influenced by television as much as it influences the nature of programming can be understood. The categories of culture that are defined for the concept of ‘quality’ television are related to the idea that the elite determine the distribution of information, thus informing the public and formatting belief systems and cultural boundaries. In an examination of the idea of quality and relating it to the idea of categories of culture, the nature of power and information control emerges. The concept of quality television is a topic for families, social groups, and theorists. It is not often, however, a topic of interest for programmers. The first issue in trying to determine how to define quality television is through an understanding that that those most interested in quality are not necessarily those who are responsible for making television. Television is business, therefore the interests of the programmers is to find television programming that will sell, which is not always in line with what is considered high quality. Television is the business of making programs that can be made for the least amount of money in order to gain the highest profit from advertising dollars. The interest from the business end that might contribute to higher quality television would be in the realm of writers, directors, creators and producers. McCabe and Akass quote Robin Nelson for having stated that “notions of quality are ‘an open narrative of the broad cultural and institutional context of the evaluation and the valuer, rather than a closed resolution answering the question of worth for all time” (McCabe and Akass, 4). Quality is a question of fashion as much as it is a question of culture. The nature of a piece of ‘art’ is considered of high quality only because society has determined that it represents a notion of quality. Quality means different things to different sectors of society. The very concept of quality cannot be determined through an overall sense of the idea as each individual provides their own framework of quality. According to Friske and Jenkins, the differences between quality as determined by the bourgeoisie and that of the elite, the concept of quality is determined through different criteria. Quality is relevant, to the bourgeoisie, through its functionality. Therefore, in trying to understand the nature of quality, the concept of relevance must be determined. The defining concept of relevance lays within “ A consensus of what is high quality can be reached through a determinant of what is valued. Relevance is a way in which quality is determined and judged as it is “activated in the specifics of each moment of reading: unlike aesthetics, relevance is time – and place bound” (Fiske and Jenkins, 103). It might be determined, then that the way in which quality is discovered is through an understanding of its relevance to time and space, the way in which it fits into the greater scheme of cultural meanings. Quality is a custom, rather than a specific identifiable quantity. To determine quality is to associate it to how something functions within the dynamics that are relevant during a time period. This is specifically relevant to the nature of television as most programs have a very small, finite time in which they are culturally situated, thus supporting one of the many reasons that series do not last for long periods of time. If a show goes on for longer than a few years, it is hard to maintain the cultural relevance. One of the reasons that old show become so nostalgic to watch is because they provide a reminiscence of the time period in which they were current. Quality becomes defined through the cultural definitions as they are supported through time and place. The quality of a show is rated and supported by how it relates to its time period. It is interesting to note how the quality of a show may endure, but that quality is still put into context with the time period. The same type of show, the way in which it is structured, will not have the same impact in another era. The way in which television quality must be viewed is through the purpose that it attempts to achieve. Television is all about sales. Charlotte Brundsdon discussed the idea that the ‘quality’ of television should be protected from the influences of free market. Ideals that are based on the premise of public service suggest that “television could improve the tastes of the masses and thereby encourage middle-class values and behaviour” (Arthurs, 10). The purpose of television, from this point of view, is to influence culture and make a difference in the conduct and attitudes of those who watch. This connects to the concept of sales through an understanding that the nature of ‘quality’ television in this case is to sell an ideal of how life should be lived. This can be seen in the type of family television that was observed in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. During this time period a specific type of family structure was viewed through the representations of family on television. In discussing the influences that family comedies such as Leave it to Beaver, The Donna Reed Show, Ozzie and Harriet, and Father Knows Best had on the American public and their belief systems about family, it is important to understand the nature of the Sociocultural Model and family theory. The Sociocultural Model is based upon the idea that behavior is based upon cultural norms and deviances from those norms. Family theory addresses the ways in which families interact with one another (Comer, 56). The family was portrayed as a content place where the roles of the male, female and children were all clearly defined and delineated. The father got up in the morning and put on his suit, heading off to work, with the wife dressing up for the day, her hair perfect, her attire consisting of a dress and modest heal, and the cliche of these programs was the pearl necklace. The children had problems that could be easily solved within a half hour program. Everyone lived in a suburb, had a car, and was sublimely happy all of the time. The pressure that this put upon the American public was in the translation of this type of family life towards an understanding of the complex truths about family life. Where these programs influenced the public to believe that this was American life, it also provided for a gap between what the individual was experiencing and the perception about American culture, leaving a wake of disappointment and feelings of inadequacy and failure (Fedorak, 94). One of the capacities of television is in the power that it can hold over culture. Fashion, belief systems, and behaviours can all be influenced by the types of programs that become popular. Fedorak quotes Conrad Phillip Kottak for his theory that television has an impact on human society at a level that can match religion, kinship, political organization and education. He goes on to postulate that television can actively create new experiences and generate new meanings about life (Fedorak, 28). After all, the image of the perfect wife as she vacuums the carpet in heels and pearls did not exist before the television brought the concept into the homes of the viewers. The nature of quality, then, can be addressed for both its reflection of the aesthetics and relevance that is interpreted about culture, but can also be seen for its influence as well. Television becomes the reflection of a social group that has a specific agenda. That agenda is flexible, but the primary nature of that group is to promote consumerism. According to Arthurs, “even in the mass market there has always been a commercial incentive to present ‘aspirational’ images of middle-class life to encourage consumer buying” (Arthurs, 9). In the example of the family styles of the 1950s, one can understand that in seeing the defined nuclear family, the relationship between the kitchen that they ate breakfast in, as an example, would invoke a desire to have that type of kitchen, complete with appliances and accessories. The living environment that the classic television families were enjoying promoted the sales of the houses and so on that were needed to support that type of life. The shows created envy, and the solution to that envy was to spend money. This brings up the question as to whether or not the nature of quality television should be seen for its reflection or for its influence. Promoting wholesome family attitudes can be seen for its higher aspirations and for the behaviours that it promotes. However, one must wonder if the program retains its ‘quality’ when it is also promoting consumerism at a level that is difficult for most families to attain. In addition, is it healthy to promote the idea that families should be free of serious problems and live lives that have little to no real conflict, supporting a failure within most families who cannot live up to this ideal? The idea of family is only one aspect of life and is being used as an example of how influential television programing has been throughout Western society. Where ‘quality’ ideals of belief systems and representations of behaviours support the distribution of values, it also supports the consumerist aesthetic, acquainting goods with emotional fulfillment. According to Jason Mitchell as quoted by Hill, television genres can be seen as cultural categories. Quality television is defined by cultural categories that are dominant and are representative of the ‘official culture’. It must be observed, however, that there is a difference between official culture and popular culture. Both of these types of culture gain capital through which assignments of belief provide for establishing the delineations of what defines quality (Casey, 283). Therefore, the categories of quality become subtexts in regard to the types of genres in which that capital is spent. The different types of social groups that become represented acquire legitimacy over time that will translate into an interpretation of quality in regard to the type of programming that becomes available. According to Arthurs “Television production and its critical reception are…regulated by quality/trash distinctions in taste that work to legitimate the tastes of the more powerful” (Arthurs, 9). In determining the types of genres that are represented and in interpreting how those categories are represented in respect to quality, the concept of taste becomes legitimized through distinguishing between belief systems. As an example, Hill postulates that factual programming is always considered as ‘quality’ because that type of programming relays facts to the public. The most distinctive genre is investigative reporting and news where the truth is brought to the public through revelation of what was not previously known by the public. This can be related to the idea of the ‘public sphere’ which is defined by Hill as suggested by Jurgen Habermas in 1974 as “an ideal space where citizens can engage in rational and political debate” (Hill, 60). According to Hill, researchers have argued that the public service broadcasting, or PSB, is an “institutional embodiment” of what is determined as the modern public sphere. However, the criticism about this characterization is that PSB fails to fully explore the many categories of culture that should be represented. This suggests that the both the public sphere and PSB are exclusive and elitist, shutting out other sectors of society (Hill, 60). As an example, in a report prepared by the Stationary Office in regard to television in Northern Ireland, it was determined that PSB was not representing that culture to the rest of the United Kingdom. Where other cultures had been represented in high profile programs such as Coronation Street, Torchwood, Monarch of the Glenn, and The Bill had been available to provide cultural context, Northern Ireland had not been represented in any such program (Television Broadcasting in Northern Ireland: Third Report of the Session 2009-2010, 53). According to Walker, in determining the nature of quality, the distinction between high/low qualities cannot be confused with the idea of high/low culture. This confusion often leads to a misunderstanding of what is reflective of high quality. The example that he uses is that there is a distinction between a good oil painting and a bad oil painting and between a good rock band and a bad rock band. However, the question that is sometimes used to reflect the way in which quality is assessed on television is whether or not a bad oil painting is still superior to a good rock band. In other words, the comparison of quality between one genre and another is irrelevant, only comparisons within each category will have importance (Walker, 189). The cultural categories can be defined by high, middlebrow, or low culture. One of the questions asked about determining the value or quality of programming is defined by determining who is deciding the criteria of quality. One of the problems of hubris among critics is that the concept of quality is observed as an objective value of an endeavour of artistry, which is how television is represented in certain terms. An example can be seen through the television programme Omnibus which ran from 1952 to 2003 which was in a documentary format discussing culturally elevated topics. One of the most important and well-remembered documentaries on the series was titled Cracked Actor, a portrait of David Bowie. However, when the program did an hour on Madonna, a media frenzy criticizing the lack of cultural and artistic importance of the actress/singer became centre stage. Michael Ignatieff, a reviewer for Late Show was outraged that the program highlighted a documentary on Madonna. He stated that “Madonna’s conception of art was false, that she was not a serious artist and that the programme was an ‘amazing abdication of editorial integrity” (Walker, 188). The heated debate that followed within the media made the point of the cultural importance of Madonna, even if her work did not qualify as significant from an artistic point of view. In this case, the quality of the programme was not based upon her artistic quality, but the quality of her presence in the cultural context. Bourdieu’s theory of cultural categories suggests that cultural power is defined by having the capacity to draw the lines in between categories of cultural taste. Through a process of selection, through inclusion, exclusion, celebration and denigration, the concept of quality is defined (Storey, 406). Post-modern theory provides for the concept that there is a polar opposition between mass culture and art. In dividing the concepts, the elite determine that what they can afford or can assign values too high for most of society to afford. Consumerism, the great equalizer as it is defined by the notion that any item costs the same for any individual, as in, a soft drink will cost the same for a wealthy person as it does a poor person, provides for the concept that mass culture and artistic pursuit can merge (Storey 410). The categories of taste become a part of the discourse on determining the nature of television quality through a great number of different concepts. The first concept is in defining the nature of television as either part of the artistic pursuits or as part of mass culture. As it is obviously part of mass culture, the merging of mass culture and art becomes a centred discourse on defining taste. The merging of the opinion of the lack of artistry in reference to Madonna in balance to the impact that she has on mass culture provides context for the discussion. It might be said, however, that although she is perhaps in a low taste category, she is at the top of that category; therefore she has a high impact in mass culture. The concept of quality and the use of categories of culture, as well as the need for addressing the various genres all provide a relativity in regard to the way in which quality is determined. Bibliography Arthurs, Jane. Television and Sexuality: Regulation and the Politics of Taste. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press, 2004. Casey, Bernadette. Television Studies: The Key Concepts. London: Taylor and Francis, Inc, 2008. Comer, Ronald J. Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology. New York: Worth publ, 2005. Fedorak, Shirley. Pop Culture: The Culture of Everyday Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Print. Fiske, John and Henry Jenkins. Understanding Popular Culture. London: Taylor and Francis, 2010. Hill, Annette, Restyling factual TV: Audiences and news, documentary and reality genres. Abingdon: Routledge, 2007. McCabe, Janet, and Kim Akass. Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond. London: I.B. Tauris, 2007. Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1998. Television Broadcasting in Northern Ireland: Third Report of Session 2009-10 : Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence. London: Stationery Office, 2010. Walker, John A. Arts TV: A History of Arts Television in Britain. London: J. Libbey, 1993 Read More