In the last class ( Mon 24 Sep ) of vis cult we talked about an aspect of veiwing, speceficaly of cinema, or cinematic elements, which envolve being a passive entity. Essentialy, we come into a movie theater and watch images within a narrative context that do not watch back. Pretty much the same thing as watching TV. Which is something I am actually suprised we didnt talk about in our last class. TV viewing is way more prolific and way more at arms legnth than cinema. In a way, it is alot more immediate in that we can turn it on and off, or flip to any channel of our choosing. We have a lot more control of when and what we decide to see.
So Does that make us passive viewers? or just passive individuals?
And beyond these questions, what is a passive viewer? What does it mean to be passive in the viewing context ? Is it a nessesarily negative thing?
I mean, lets face it, most of us spend our days either at work or at school, either way, for the most part, during the day we bust our ass! we work, we do stuff, we have to be on! yo! So, when we choose to entertain ourselves via TV or the movies, I would think for the most part, we do not want to not think too much about what we are seeing, and be, just that, Entertained.
Is viewer passitivitey within this context a negative thing? I mean, it's just spare down time. Entertainment, a suspention of disbelief for a moment in our work a day world of stress and deadlinment.
Yet, paradoxally, what we see on TV or the movies are esentially diarythmic, highly constructed conventions relegated by those with power. Capitals of industry or media conglomerates to be exact. From Friends to Seinfield to Hockey night in Canada, these programs are onTV, or movies like Shriek and Harry Potter serve a higher purpose to be sure.
Distraction and entrapment!
Fun and entertaining nontheless, But mabey too captivating.
Mabey it is time to relevate our discussion into ways that we can use these mechanisims to look into our own condition of passive complacency? If such a condition even does exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In response to the concept of 'viewer passitivity' in relation to television and movies I don't think that it is an entirely bad thing.
The creators of the television shows, and movie you watch are ultimatly striving to intise the viewer into 'losing themselves' in whatever program they are watching. If losing yourself in a movie, or television program gives you pleasure and allows you to be somewhere else for a short period or time I don't believe one should feel guilty. You are giving the creators of the program exactly what they want, (viewer passitivity) and in return they are providing you with satsifiying entertainment.
On the other hand, what if the viewer is losing themselves in a program that they might not even be interested in? This question probably has more to do with the individual watching television or a movie then it does with the program they are watching, because the exchange between the two entities (program and individual) is not even.
-Melissa Skowron
For me, I see two types of TV viewers; passive viewers and involved viewers. Either of these two, for the most part, is a direct result from the viewers' decision on how they want to be entertained by the medium.
Passive viewers are viewers who do not want to think too much about what we are seeing, and just want to be entertained. On the other hand, involved viewers are viewers who want to be engaged in their program of choice as much as they desire.
Can we say that either viewer type is good or bad? I don't think so. It's just entertainment after all. The level of involvement can always be controlled by the individual viewer. Well, almost always. There are always will be programs that will involve you more than you want to.
-Vivian Lee
Post a Comment