Television

[endlessness]

People denigrating the entire art form because they don't appreciate it, though,

How much of TV content is art form? If people think most of tv content is crap, what is the issue with that? I understand if you take issue with "ALL tv content is crap", specially if some of that content is made by you , but thats not what all people that criticize TV say.

Still, a TV show is still a TV show in whatever medium you consume it. It was written by a TV teleplay writer, produced through the TV system, aimed at TV audiences, aired on TV etc. If you rent it on DVD or watch it on the internet, it doesn't magically change into something else.

Its not about it magically changing into something else, as I said there are several specific factors involved. For example, the fact that it was still made by a TV channel/producers, then you are right that if for example I have criticisms about the producers, then regardless of where I watch it, the criticism still stands. But other aspects not, for example the commercial and the 'zapping' involved with most people who will want to watch that program, searching for it, watching other things while advertising is gone, etc.

I find some TV empowering because it inspires me to raise the bar on my own writing. I never said it was universally inspiring.

Good for you, if you feel so. I still think that for most people, or in other words, social consequences of TV (with medium), it is disempowering, a burden for humans specially kids. Thats just my opinion though.

Lastly, anyone CAN create TV content. The cost of an HD camera now is next to nothing, and editing software is ubiquitous. Also, most cable providers still have community access channels that usually come with space and equipment for any crap that you might want to film. It has gotten less available in recent years, but it is still possible. YouTube channels are also a form of do-it-yourself TV.

The time-scale and work related to how you can upload something to youtube and the difficulties involved in making something actually air on real TV channels are completely different, and again it seems you are speaking strictly from a certain american perspective, which isnt representative of worldwide situation. I still think most youtube stuff is low quality and I really dislike the fact that there are advertisements involved but with adblocks and other addons, you dont have to watch any comercial, and you can go specifically to what you want, plus its decentralized in terms of who creates content so you are not supporting any big crap producers you dont want. In fact it is much more empowering exactly because it lets anyone with the crappiest camera to upload anything they want, and a lot of it, not the same with TV.

I just think your points are sort of inconsequential and not 100% accurate. But then, you don't watch TV so how could they be? The opinions about spice held by people who never extracted or used it don't hold that much weight either... even if they are sociologists or anthropologists.

bad analogy, because I have watched TV before, and I see others watching TV and the crap they are watching, whether it is friends or family or people in bars or what not. Unless you are saying that I have to smoke DMT every day to be able to give my opinion on dmt?

 

[polytrip]

My TV policy is: everyday i can read in my newspaper what's on TV that day. When there's nothing on it that would make me want to watch TV, it just stays off. When i read that a series or movie is made by jerry brukheimer, i know it's not for me.

Although i barely watch TV, i'm glad i have it.
The BBC's and some belgian (canvas) and german (ARD, ZDF) channels often have very good programs or documentary's that are not dumbed-down in any way.

Especially the BBC holds some good values i think, since the focus of it is very much on education. The BBC is also an independant organisation. It's mainly there to educate the public, it's not a downingstreet-propaganda machine and not a commercial organisation either. They wheren't afraid for instance to show the complexities of the situation in afghanistan or libya: they would always tell that there is a genuine base of support for the taliban, or moamar gadhafi's regime.

 

[universecannon]

"Who didn't talk or think about how Lost or the Sopranos ended?"


me and a few billion other humans

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Heheheh

My analogy fits in that you never MADE TV. People who can't paint love to talk about the quality of whatever artists are in vogue.

All TV is an art form. Like most art forms, the vast majority of it is bad. There are tens of 1000s of finger paintings out there for every piece of art that hangs in a gallery. The fact that you don't like the art form or haven't found examples that you enjoy doesn't make it less of an art. In fact, TV is a composite art form with dozens of smaller arts compiled together. Writing is an art. Acting is an art. Set design, prop design, costume design etc. All art forms. You respect interior designers as artists... at lest most people do. Is it less artistic when done for TV? Even the cooks at the craft services table are artists. Publicists are artists in the way they handle publicity. If you ever heard an agent spin his BS, you could say that they are verbal artists as well.

Poor quality or the amount of poor examples in ratio to the good stuff does not make it not art. I could say that playing piano is "disempowering, a burden for humans specially for kids." After all, most people suck at it. If you hear someone playing piano, it is likely to be rather annoying and shitty. Kids would rather do something else, but are forced into this activity by and large.

It isn't only art if you like it. I don't really care so much for Jackson Pollack, but I know he is an artist nonetheless.

I agree with most of what you say. Even where we appear to disagree, it is mostly superficial. In my first post on this thread, I made it clear how I feel about zapping and watching whatever is on.

You are correct that my perspective is primarily American. In fact, it is very much Hollywood specific. But that doesn't make it any less valid. If anything, the proximity and depth of understanding I have for how a TV show gets made make my comments even more relevant. I have traveled the world, though. And I know that everywhere I went, they had TV. Furthermore, there was always a town that served as the local Hollywood. Like in the Netherlands you have Hilversum and Germany has Cologne.

Anyway man. I wish you well. We don't have to agree about everything.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

"Who didn't talk or think about how Lost or the Sopranos ended?"


me and a few billion other humans

Probably because you didn't watch either episode.

 

[universecannon]

^ duh :lol:

i agree though that its not all good or all bad..


this sums up my thoughts on tv [YOUTUBE]

 

[endlessness]

Alright I get what you're saying about art.. I dont consider art only what I like (in fact, with my peculiar taste, very few of what is called art is of my liking ), but I think it becomes pretty meaningless to call everything an art, no?.. One definition of art says: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. ". More than of ordinary significance.. IMO most of TV isnt more than of ordinary significance, but maybe you disagree?

I think you took my comment about how TV is a burden completely out of context. I didnt say that TV is a burden only because of the poor quality of most shows. I rather meant that, the poor quality shows and very importantly, the medium of TV, is made in such a way that I do consider it a burden on society, but not that every single piece that ever aired on TV is a burden. Just like IMO fast food is also a burden on society, and this isnt supposed to be generalized that all food is a burden.

As for your perspective being american, I didnt meant to say its less valid, it was just pointing out that you were making generalizations and affirmations that seemed specifically fitting for the american context and not necessarily world wide (for example how one can make content that is aired on TV and access to cheap HD cameras and the watching of TV through other technology that people can chose content, etc).

Lastly, I agree we dont have to agree with everything, I hope my posts didnt seem in any way negative, I was just having a nice discussion about the subject at hand. In fact, im glad you are taking a contrary position because it makes me think about the subject in different ways I hadnt thought about

Wish you well too

 

[jdubs]

but I think it becomes pretty meaningless to call everything an art, no?..

Yes.

 

[obliguhl]

Jeremy Narby.

The shamans Jeremy Narby paraphrased.

Me. :lol:

That's like calling DMT "a businessmans trip". Ayahuasca got nothing to do with Television and it is not comparable in the slightest way. It is neither passive, nor shows you dumb visions, it is not recreational per se and even indigenous people fear it.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I get you. It's all good.

I myself looked down on TV for a good long time, and still debate whether it is time well spent when I watch it.

But, I do love a good story. I like to fall in love with fictional characters and anxiously await to see how the writers will find unexpected ways to torture them. How they will bait & switch us... etc.

Interestingly enough, the TV that is most universally despised (i.e. competitions shows and "reality" tv) tend to be the most interactive. People actually vote on The Voice or X-Factor. The next episode is directly a result of interaction by the fans. And, as you noted before, YouTube (for all its wonderful 2.0 interactivity) tends to be filled with utter and complete crap. Webisodes and rants from every angst ridden teen with a webcam? Give me any cheesy sci-fi show over that. Just me, but I would rather watch Alphas or porn than most YouTube channels.

I also prefer Wagner's propoganda music over amateur noodling or scale practice. By far.

I suppose I feel that there is a reason people choose to zone out with TV. It isn't merely a brainwashing thing, either. Sure there are subliminals in the ads, and plenty of cultural programming... but people choose to watch it. It is not compulsory like having health insurance or whatever. People LOVE TV.

I would even venture to say that it is our art forms that people around the world most admire about the US. What would this sad world be if it wasn't for cinema and recorded music? Celuloid & wax. Blues & Jazz. Rock & Roll. Funk. You find these things in the deserts of Mali... in the jungles of Borneo. Nobody evangelizes or goes on missions to spread the Hollywood gospel. On the contrary, people come from around the world begging to be part of it. We have to beat them off like flies.

It is not accident, and it is not crass manipulation. These art forms and crafts are poignant. They touch something very deep in the human psyche. Some of it certainly strives to be ART in the sense you described. And, even when they are merely vapid or lurid, they still refuse to be ignored. They loom larger than life on the cultural landscape of the world.

And, at any rate, they are not going anywhere.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Jeremy Narby.

The shamans Jeremy Narby paraphrased.

Me. :lol:

That's like calling DMT "a businessmans trip". Ayahuasca got nothing to do with Television and it is not comparable in the slightest way. It is neither passive, nor shows you dumb visions, it is not recreational per se and even indigenous people fear it.

Also, for all of its jaw dropping, eye popping astoundingess... it's astonishing awesomeness...

It doesn't tell you stories in any coherent way. It is not serialized so that when you come back to hyperspace, they pick up the story where they left off.

Imagine. You take a hit of spice and a voice over guy comes on "Previously, on DMT Hyperspace..."

Hehehehe.

Anyway, they are not in competition. You can have BOTH.

 

[ms_manic_minxx]

Obliguhl... It's just an analogy. It's "Jungle TV" because you can watch a story or a scene inside your head, Ayahuasca comes from the jungle and is often jungle-themed. Not all analogies are perfect.

And, while 99.99% of television is garbage, you can still consciously seek out that which is not. Television never gives ME dumb visions because when I watch something, I make sure it isn't stupid, stop watching if it is, and would never willingly expose myself to advertising.

How actively or passively you engage something is up to you.

You can refine the analogy if you want. But if you read the cosmic serpent, it's easy to infer that's all that Jeremy Narby meant--seeing lifelike scenes, creatures, and things fantastical, like, well, is possible with television.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Obliguhl... It's just an analogy. It's "Jungle TV" because you can watch a story or a scene inside your head, Ayahuasca comes from the jungle and is often jungle-themed. Not all analogies are perfect.

And, while 99.99% of television is garbage, you can still consciously seek out that which is not. Television never gives ME dumb visions because when I watch something, I make sure it isn't stupid, stop watching if it is, and would never willingly expose myself to advertising.

How actively or passively you engage something is up to you.

You can refine the analogy if you want. But if you read the cosmic serpent, it's easy to infer that's all that Jeremy Narby meant--seeing lifelike scenes, creatures, and things fantastical, like, well, is possible with television.

Actually, now that you mention it, SWIM remembers a time earlier in his Ayahuasca journeys where he had the experience of multiple TV screens appearring before him in which he could simultaneously observe events transpiring in different locations in his vicinity. It came due to a vague desire he had to know what was going on with various people at a rather large ravish type 3 day festival he was at. He was specifically interested in how certain friends were getting on... especially an ex-girlfriend who was there. 6 screens came up, but he could focus on any or all of them with ease, and at one point he reduced it to 4 because 2 were showing things that didn't matter to him whatsoever.

Using his closed circuit psychic TV, he was able to see what everyone was doing. After seeing something especially titillating going down at the bathroom facilities, he decided he had to check it out physically to make sure he was not simply hallucinating fantasy. He wandered down there, and found that his TV images matched reality EXACTLY. In fact, he was able to wiggle the scenes forward or backward in time a bit to catch things that had just happened or were about to.

The content of this particular vision are somewhat private, so I will end this just by saying that SWIM (the psychonaut who I write for as a service to the blogosphere) had experiences of this nature before and after. It wasn't until it had happened a few times that he stopped feeling the need to check to see if it was real and began to understand that he could trust this information. He hasn't had the psychic TV motif much in recent years, but this is probably because he is relatively uninterested in what is happening in this base material world... at least not when he has access to more amazing realms. He has seen screens though that are capable of showing cosmic things as well as information relating to the whole of humanity and other incredible things.

Still, as unbelievably cool as all this was/is, he never sees complete stories. He sees scenes, has encounters, gets blown away repeatedly... each next wonder topping the last. However, it doesn't replace TV for him. There is something special about the completeness and craft of human fiction. SWIM will take DMT over TV in a heartbeat, but when his mind is full from hyperspace and he just wants to veg out a bit while eating some comfort foods... nothing (and I mean nothing) beats some familiar and pacific television.

 

[christian]

C'mon guys, just how would you cope without your regular dose of Simon Cowel on the X factor, and Big Brother???

---The tv people KNOW that you need to be entertained, and are INCAPABLE of entertaining yourself ....!!!:lol:

 

[obliguhl]

You can refine the analogy if you want. But if you read the cosmic serpent, it's easy to infer that's all that Jeremy Narby meant--seeing lifelike scenes, creatures, and things fantastical, like, well, is possible with television.

Well, my take on this is, that you have a responsibility if you are making analogies. I can say that DMT is like heroin, and yes, it would share some similarities (it's a psychoactive substance for instance). Noone on this forum would support this analogy because it's got bad implication. I'm really surprised that it is acceptable for you and others to refer to ayahuasca as jungle tv. It's is a very shameful oversimplification which does not do justice to the rich cultural background of the vine (besides the point that the analogy is faulty).

 

[polytrip]

Alright I get what you're saying about art.. I dont consider art only what I like (in fact, with my peculiar taste, very few of what is called art is of my liking ), but I think it becomes pretty meaningless to call everything an art, no?.. One definition of art says: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. ". More than of ordinary significance.. IMO most of TV isnt more than of ordinary significance, but maybe you disagree?

I think you took my comment about how TV is a burden completely out of context. I didnt say that TV is a burden only because of the poor quality of most shows. I rather meant that, the poor quality shows and very importantly, the medium of TV, is made in such a way that I do consider it a burden on society, but not that every single piece that ever aired on TV is a burden. Just like IMO fast food is also a burden on society, and this isnt supposed to be generalized that all food is a burden.

As for your perspective being american, I didnt meant to say its less valid, it was just pointing out that you were making generalizations and affirmations that seemed specifically fitting for the american context and not necessarily world wide (for example how one can make content that is aired on TV and access to cheap HD cameras and the watching of TV through other technology that people can chose content, etc).

Lastly, I agree we dont have to agree with everything, I hope my posts didnt seem in any way negative, I was just having a nice discussion about the subject at hand. In fact, im glad you are taking a contrary position because it makes me think about the subject in different ways I hadnt thought about

Wish you well too

How can TV be a burden to society when there are so many wonderfull programs, documentaries and movies to watch?
I'm well aware that TV-culture differs in each nation and that there are places, like italy where 99.9% of everything aired is total crap (i've seen enough rai-uno to be able to judge, and rai-uno isn't even one of mr bungabunga's channels).

How can TV be a burden to society when you can simply choose not to watch anything that's crap?

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

^ rai-uno is pretty bad.

Just give me my H.R. Pufnstuf with the magic flute... and School House Rock.

 

[ms_manic_minxx]

I see only a very useful analogy between comparing the technical capabilities of a television and the way Ayahuasca produces moving, full-color content in the brain.

I have no reason to be ashamed of my relationship with television--I engage myself selectively and consciously. It is a tool. I wouldn't have a fluent second language, for example, without television programming/cinema.

I haven't owned a television, much less subscribed to cable, for many many years. There is no need for shame because lots of people can choose to use a television intelligently. Same with the internet! You can look at [rule 34: if you can imagine it, there is a fetish] and spend hours on Facebook, or... you could learn something. Energy flows where attention goes, and if you don't like it, don't support it (again, I will never have cable).

So, I fail to see how this proves to be a poor analogy, especially considered from a technical aspect. The only difference is, all the programming on Jungle TV is very educational, whereas with "regular" TV, you really have to know how and where to find the needle in the haystack (CBC is showing a documentary next month about Ayahuasca and Iboga healing in Vancouver! 8) ).

ESPECIALLY, consider, if you were to write a book and attempting to explain "innervision" to someone totally virgin to the experience. Do you have a better analogy? Sorry, I do endorse Jeremy Narby. I love his insight and I love his use of language.

 

[jamie]

Jeremy Narby.

The shamans Jeremy Narby paraphrased.

Me. :lol:

That's like calling DMT "a businessmans trip". Ayahuasca got nothing to do with Television and it is not comparable in the slightest way. It is neither passive, nor shows you dumb visions, it is not recreational per se and even indigenous people fear it.

Wholy shit man it's called sarcasm. If you really feel the need to get defensive about a post like that you really need to get out more and stop worrying about the internet man.

 

[Kronas]

Television is a babysitter, I have seen countless times, rooms full of people become zombies in front of T.V.'s.
If you think that T.V. is an art or artistic, you have horrible taste in art. It is a tool for brainwashing the masses. Occasionally there may be some informative programs on, but no where near the amount of information that the internet holds.

If you have smoked DMT and had a breakthrough experience, and still enjoy watching T.V...............you didn't get the message LMFAO

Ill let everyone in on the secret....we don't need T.V.s..............because we have EYES, that allow us to watch the coolest shit you could possibly imagine right in front of you all the time, a.k.a. LIFE

Peace - Kill your T.V. (Turn it off)