Updated April 23, 2016 at 11:55 pm
For the second consecutive year and sixth time in history, the highest award in American journalism recognized a person who writes about TV. The Pulitzer Criticism of this year, announced Monday, acknowledged the analytical work of Emily Nussbaum, who dissects series and trends in The New Yorker since 2011.
it is not risky to say, at this point, that American television had never offered such high quality programs. Furthermore, access from abroad to increasingly programming that country allows live together with its media ecosystem in “real time” and be attentive, precisely those critics who previously remained inaccessible.
Among them, Nussbaum, who for more than a decade has traced with impeccable diligence transformations that mass entertainment today can say without embarrassment, that aspires to be “art”. “Those of us who love TV have won the war. Programs best writings are considered significant art: discussed, revered, denounced “he writes in The Price Is Right , one of the tests by which the Pulitzer deserved
the artistic merit of television was not something that was given for granted; however, the ultimate mastery of The Sopranos , The Wire or Arrested Development , for example. Until just over five years ago, it was feared that the fever of reality show murdered the interest of at least viewers, the mass of interest to advertisers, who financed production . –
still, critical writing of authors like Nussbaum and Mary McNamara (Pulitzer last year) is pushing reflection on this medium in new directions: gender, new ways narratives, the relationship with advertising in the era of Netflix, the binge-watching ( “binging” chapter) … it is not easy to know when or where we are we go: in 20 years of the Internet, mass culture has been upset with the violence of a good episode of the Walking Dead
Matt Zoller Seitz, another critical remarkable, says: “often we talk about television as the new seventh art. Aesthetically, television is not as advanced as the film, but only because it is a younger half. The film takes you 50 years. ” He points to the maturation of criticism: it is because analysts take it seriously we mean on TV now
I’m in. <- - .ad-main!> disagreement. See the growth of television in “evolutionary” terms as if someday aspire to match the movies, you risk obviate the specifics of this, subtlety, complexity and current limitations of the series today. Language itself requires a thorough knowledge of the specifics of this new era. And should be developed soon (Zoller Seitz does very well)
Criticism has given -the good- rise to a new way of understanding television; also it is pushing to improve, expand and multiply. It will continue to grow, and not just Netflix. In South Korea, mobile soap operas are very popular; in Costa Rica, the buses will feed screens with curious original and commercial programming. But here, just a mass medium ( The Nation ) published relatively frequently television criticism.
improvement without debate possible? If we see a golden age elsewhere, should not we aim higher on this island? Without critical dialogue, what will be the space to discuss these issues ?, where we will discuss what will be the shape of the policy of the future (or present TV?
I’d say we are doomed to silence because watching national television is confirmed as pessimistic, but I, a few years ago, believed the reality show was the end. Then came this golden era, with critics not were left blinded by its brightness, and turned the benefit of the doubt.
fernando.chaves@nacion.com
Journalist of Culture
Live Coeditor Supplement La Nacion. audiovisual producer and journalist graduated from the University of Costa Rica. He writes about literature, visual arts, film and music
.
No comments:
Post a Comment