Abstract
Ted Nannicelli’s new book promises a ‘sustained account of the appreciation of television as an art form’ (p. 1). It does not proffer extensive accounts of specific TV programmes but presents a reflective, meta-critical and conceptual account of the act of appreciation. Appreciating the Art of Television constitutes a particularly valuable contribution to the subfield of television aesthetics, but also, more importantly for the majority of readers, explores the appreciative practices in which we all engage, formally or informally, as we watch, think about and talk about television.
Appreciating the Art of Television straddles television studies and analytic (philosophical) aesthetics, a stimulating and inspiring combination for readers interested or engaged in TV aesthetics. Nannicelli wisely acknowledges, however, on his very first page, the potential provocation to ‘cultural studies theorists in television studies’ (p. 1). One of the book’s most successful qualities is the way in which it speaks with confidence and sensitivity to aesthetics sceptics, addressing several of the most substantial allegations made against aesthetic approaches, and disclosing a surprisingly large area of common ground between aestheticians and TV scholars.
Nannicelli addresses areas of common interest, including questions of authorship, interpretation and ideological/ethical criticism, alongside concepts more typically covered by aestheticians, such as medium and art. His analytic training is evident in his commendable clarity, avoidance of jargon and emphasis on everyday activities and language. There are typical traits of philosophical writing here, with talk of hard cases (p. 4), and an emphasis on ‘conceptual analysis and dialectical argumentative structure’ (p. 11). Nannicelli asks for forbearance from readers unfamiliar with this kind of philosophical argumentation (p. 12) – but his plea belies the extent to which this book meets the reader on his or her own ground. Nannicelli’s impressive breadth of reference balances and integrates work drawn from TV studies and philosophical aesthetics, creating an account which is expansive yet accessible.
The introduction stresses the book’s concern with appreciation in general, not aesthetic appreciation in particular. It also foregrounds a central notion: the importance of human agency, of the intentional activity of creation, at the core of our appreciative practices. Chapter 1 addresses the thorny question of television authorship, seeking a useful model for accounting for (creative) intention. In a thorough investigation, Nannicelli acknowledges widespread scholarly trepidation around the idea of ‘intention’, suggesting that sources as varied as literature on the philosophy of action, production studies, TV aesthetics and expressive criticism may help assuage concerns. He defends moderate intentionalism (p. 166), persuasively advocating ‘agency’ over ‘authorship’. An ‘agential approach’ (p. 18) recognises the pragmatic and theoretical challenges of TV authorship, seeking only to attribute ‘sufficient control’. This helpful model could help television viewers and scholars attribute creative contributions and inform their appreciation of the programmes they watch.
Chapter 2 addresses the medium and art of TV. Nannicelli proposes that the art of TV is partly constituted by the medium of TV. In proposing a ‘medium of TV’, Nannicelli commits himself, as he acknowledges (p. 51), to proving that such a thing exists separate from other moving image media. This is a challenge, especially given the recent dispersal of television across other forms. To meet it, Nannicelli considers physical and vehicular media, citing familiar elements such as ‘liveness’ (p. 66), temporal ‘prolongation’ (p. 68) and serialisation (p. 74), as key features of television. Finally, with reference to temporal prolongation, he explores character development, suspense and running gags.
Nannicelli emphatically rejects medium essentialism, observing that TV has no instrinsic essence, but that its identity is relational, and has some material basis. Given this, it is unclear why he feels the need to commit to a medium of TV at all. One might simply counter that television-as-art is constituted by a variety of media, some extremely common to, and thus often associated with, TV, others shared more widely with other arts. Liveness, for example, is a principal component also of theatre and radio. Surely no medium is specific to any one art; it is rather the peculiar and sustained combination of media that forms a sense of one art distinct from another (see Cardwell, 2014). Nannicelli’s account is, however, conceptually self-coherent – and on closer inspection, it may be that these objections constitute merely ‘terminological disputes’ (p. 82).
Chapter 3 focuses on ontology, or work-identity, on the grounds that it is better to seek some ‘rough consensus’ on basic ontological questions, ‘for the interpretation and evaluation of television artworks to be coherent and meaningful’ (p. 88), so that we avoid talking past one another. This chapter astutely reveals that many of the supposed problems of TV’s ontology arise from ‘imprecise theoretical vocabulary’ (p. 89), and especially the near-universal use of the word ‘text’. Used meaningfully and deliberatively, ‘text’ serves valuable functions, for example, in fan studies (p. 95). But its value is relative to its context, and at times, ‘text’ causes conceptual problems that could be avoided if we used simpler, more specific vocabulary such as episode, series, and so on. Nannicelli, therefore, advocates moving beyond ‘text’, preferring the ontologically less complicated ‘work’, when a broader term is required.
Chapters 4 and 5 consider the limits of interpretation. They aim to underpin and ‘bolster’ (p. 126) existing practices of interpretation within TV studies, recognising a wide range of legitimate interpretative aims. To this end, Nannicelli challenges constructivist and relativist approaches to interpretation, addressing ‘work meaning’ (p. 123), fictional truths (what is true-within-a-fiction) and the importance of genre/category. He notes that such elements are ‘determined by creators’ successfully realised intentions (p. 149) (while recognising that these intentions may or may not be important to us, depending on our foci and aims).
Chapter 5 tackles ethical criticism and its crossovers with ideological criticism. Exposing the problems posed by relativism, Nannicelli’s alternative approach brings succour to those engaged in ethical or ideological critique, averring that if a work is ethically meritorious or flawed, we might objectively question its artistic value.
Evaluation is the focus of Chapter 6. Nannicelli follows many previous scholars in observing the enduring importance of evaluation in appreciative contexts. Beginning with examples of common appreciative and critical behaviour (p. 185), he questions the purpose of evaluative criticism, distinguishes aesthetic from artistic judgements (p. 182) and proposes ‘five ways in which judgements of the artistic value of television artworks are objectively grounded’ (p. 203). Each of these ways considers the work in its own terms, the intentions of its creators and the work’s ethical value or disvalue. Crucially, Nannicelli stresses that for the vast majority of contemporary aestheticians, value is not instrinsic, but instrumental – ‘to the extent that [the work] affords a valuable experience’ (p. 204).
Appreciating the Art of Television makes a vital contribution to television aesthetics. It also constitutes a lively, thought-provoking and sensitive engagement with a range of concerns that preoccupy scholars from across TV studies. It sheds much-needed light upon our ordinary appreciative practices, especially acts of interpretation and evaluation. It is invaluable reading for today’s television scholar and viewer.