Reader Report Emerging Media: John Thornton Caldwell Televisuality: Style, Crisis and Authority in American Television Chapter

1: Excessive Style: The crisis of Network Television Key aspects: In the beginning of chapter one Caldwell outlines a new trend in television programs. He gives certain examples such as THUNDER AND MUD, AMERICAN GLADIATORS and ROCK-AND ROLLERGAMES. These television programs are not positively defined, and are even suggested to be trash. Moreover, these sorts of programs determined the low -culture in the end of the 1980s. However, these shows were widely syndicated, promoted and distributed, which resulted in a high popularity of these programs. Caldwell defines such programs as a stylistic bridge between low-culture television and high-culture television, were the differentiation of styles could come together because of these trash programs. In the 1990s, television became more aware of its own aesthetics and presentation, according to Caldwell. He asserts: Television has come to flaunt and display style. Programs battle for identifiable style-markers and distinct looks in order to gain audience share within the competitive broadcast flow.1 Thus, style had become an important signifier for television shows. Caldwell claims, that this need for excessive television style was the result of: the industrys mode of production, programming practice, audience expectations and because of the economic crisis in network television. According to Caldwell, there are six principles which define and delimit the degree of televisuality. First, television was a stylizing performance that utilised many different looks . For instance, the visual style of programs were always adapting, modified and changing on visual level as well on technological level. Second, Televisuality represented a structural invention. Hence, the status of presentation regarding television style changed. This in regard to hierarchies and formats, and visual style became a key aspect of the content. Third, televisuality was an industrial product. The mode of production had an increasingly impact on the content en narrative of television programs. The production mode is an on-going changing development, and adapts itself t cultural and economic shifts. Therefore, Caldwell states, that television is manufactured. As an example, Caldwell refers to the digital imaging of production studios. This had an impact on the visual form of the content and narratives, and were used to distinguish programs from the clutter. Fourth principle concerns the televisuality as a programming phenomenon. Almost all programs appeared to be special, and therefore the whole range of programs appeared as common. Subsequently,

John Caldwell, Televisuality: style, crisis and authority in American Television , (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press: 1994), 5.

programmers started to focus on smaller audiences, in order to increase the ratings and niche audiences emerged. Fifth, televisuality was a function of audience. In former examples, it was suggested that television changed into trash, but it also changed in the complete other direction. Some television programs were directed at a high sophisticated audience, and the content adjusted to their demands. This resulted in late-night television programs with an emphasis on aesthetics regarding television shows and commercials. Sixth, televisuality was a product of economic crisis . Television in the network era was threatened by cable television. Therefore, it had to distinguish itself by being more conscious of style and high production value programming. The market share of the networks were in decline. According to Caldwell, televisuality contains several axes, such as, formal, authorial, generic, and historical. On formal basis, televisuality gained territory by utilising cinematic and videographic techniques. The former consists out of a filmic look interwoven with television. Cinematic values increased the television spectacle, high production values and feature style series. Television also inhabited video graphics in order to enhance an extravagant style. The authority axes is based on the increasingly more important role of the producers names. Certain names guaranteed a aesthetic quality of television programs. Names like Aaron Spelling and Steven Spielberg were exploited for popularising their shows. Thus names became signatures of high quality television shows. Furthermore, Caldwell claims: The extent of the trend can be better understood by comparing genres that favoured televisual performance and those that did not. Television's bread-and-butter genres-i-where stylistic excess is an exceptioninclude daytime talk shows, soap operas, video-origination sitcoms, non-primetime public affairs shows, some public access cable shows, non-profit public service announcement spots (PSAS), and late-night off-air test patterns.2 The only genre that resisted televisuality is the sitcom, because of its family ideology. The sitcom has an inherited conservative cultural function, therefore it did not alter its style. Many other genres did alter their style, according to Caldwell. Caldwell asserts, that it is key to acknowledge that televisuality stimulates a special status and inherits difference and change. Some television styles tried to be different in order to distinguish themselves from the huge amount of other shows.

Caldwel, Televisuality, 18.

Thought about the text: It is very clear that Caldwell tried to distinguish his article by choosing another approach. He succeeded by focussing on several layers of televisuality. For instance, he described the economic issues concerning the changing style of programs. In my point of view, his approach is a deepened view on changing television. Whereas, Lyn Spigel chose a more cultural approach, the combination of both article give a profound view on altered television sets, culture and economic. What I appreciated most of Caldwells text is twofold. First, he discusses the change in style, which in my point of view is important to understand contemporary television. It is therefore evident, that style is also a cycle, and that the more low-culture television programs are not a mere contemporary phenomenon. He combines this altered style with economic factors, which is inextricable. Second, he tackles the glance theory, which supports the content and arguments of his article. Although, there is not a lot of support for audience research in the academic world. I would like to suggest that the friction on several theories, for example the glance theory, supports this need for further research. The only aspect of Caldwells text which is still a little bit incomprehensible is his view on liveness. I now understood it as liveness being the ideology of time. Since, we discussed liveness in former meetings, I am curious to find out how this can be understood regarding other theories on liveness.