How was television figured as a “window on the
world” during the period of 1948-1955, according to Lynn Spigel? Do
you think television fulfills (or is portrayed as fulfilling) a similar role
today?
I think that television has expanded beyond simply being a window to the remainder of the world. While there are still programs like National Geographic's Planet Earth that present different locales on the planet to the people watching TV, it seems that a lot of the attention has shifted to extra-worldly places. I think this is partially explained by the fact the space race and the first moon landing happened between the introduction of television and now.
Television also offers people windows into the lives of others more now than it did in the past. It seems that people are becoming increasingly interested in others' careers with the emergence of many law dramas, crime dramas and spy dramas that has occurred recently. There is also the more realistic side to this obsession with programs like those found on Investigation Discovery or Undercover Boss. This fulfills a similar role in people's lives to a window to the world, it allows for people to escape their own jobs and peek into the lives of people that have careers that seem more interesting than their own.
Even though the means have changed over the years, the end goal of television has stayed largely the same. It allows people to transport themselves to different places or just to generally escape from their own lives for brief periods of time.
I believe that the popularity of TV partially comes from the opportunity that it provides. From the comfort of your own home you can see the pyramids or hear the noises of a rainforest. People used TV as this 'window on the world' to create spectacular experiences and provide phenomenal sights. As Spigel states on the topic of rustic home decor, "Although the 1950s witnessed the most extreme preoccupation with the merging of indoor and outdoor space, this ideal had been part of the model for interior design in the first suburban houses of the latter nineteenth century," (Spigel 8). Television provided an easy way to merge indoor and outdoor space with the possibility of staying in your home and viewing the spectacular sights of the world. This convenience of accessibility to the world made TV a perfect fit to this rustic style of home-living. This trend helped expedite the process of making TV a common aspect of people's homes.
On a more personal level sitcoms introduced viewers to a new family/couple like a friendly neighbor. Vaudeville acts introduced people to exciting talents and original talents. This TV window provided people an opportunity to experience new things within the comfort of their own homes. Currently, however, the availability of the 'window on the world' isn't as much dependent on television. The internet and other sources of media provide the same material in a more accessible fashion. TV programs still try to introduce viewers to new things through this 'window on the world', but competition with these other forms necessitate the need to branch out. Some networks use shows about vampires and werewolves to introduced people to things they wouldn't see in their day-to-day lives. Shows like Parenthood and Modern Family introduce viewers to a variety of familial dramas in a way that it is difficult for anyone to have experienced all of them.
The 1950 concept of a 'Window on the World' used to introduce people to things that they couldn't typically see. Though the programs and themes may be different television has evolved to continue to introduce people to things that they can't typically see.
In the 1950s, television promised to show its consumers a window on the world. Lynn Spigel discusses television’s “ability to bring ‘another world’ into the home” and merge the outside world with the inside (7). I think that today, one could still say that television serves this function, but that the function has a somewhat different meaning. Spigel mentions a 1953 Emerson advertisement proclaiming “a TV picture so clear, so sharp… you’ll think you’re at the movies!” (13). This ad seems to say that back then, television imitated cinema. There were other advertisements showing things like home theaters, but I think that now television imitates cinema in a different way. The tone, color, lighting, special effects, and character and plot development of current television exhibit a closer resemblance to cinema than programs of the past. A couple strong examples of this are Breaking Bad and Mad Men, with their very high production value and lack of a procedural plot.
The 1953 Emerson ad is also interesting because it sort of foreshadows the emergence of high-definition television some 40 or 50 years in advance. I was compelled by Spigel’s examples of ads that depicted television as something that breaks the boundaries of reality by putting you in the environment onscreen. Television has always had a determined goal of getting closer to reality. Live showings of sports and news assure the viewer that they’re getting the very best view of the reality taking place. As Spigel states, “TV was ideally intended to perfect the experience of watching a live performance” (23).
Television has and continues to be a “maximum extension of the perceived environment with a mininmum of effort”—it’s amazing to think that as far as TV has expanded now, you can sit on the couch and take in an infinite amount of knowledge (7). Of course, sometimes this window on the world gets a bit too close for comfort. Reality shows depicting caricatures of pseudo-celebrities are simply on the air because these people do ridiculous things that somehow draw many of us in. Needless to say, reality shows ironically don’t accurately portray reality.
The merging of the inside and outside worlds that Spigel discusses has changed over time. Today people have more ability to travel to some of the places they only saw on their TV screens, so now TV shows a lot of things that no one or most people could never witness. Violence is great example of this on shows like Hannibal, Dexter, and Bates Motel. We’re shown graphic imagery we will never encounter in the real world. Perhaps TV is not a window on our world per se, but rather a window into a different world. Spigel wrote, “Television brought to the home a vision of the world which the human eye itself could never see,” but now it has expanded beyond the growing boundaries of what humans can see and closer to what the mind can imagine (27).
It seems like man is trying to disconnect himself from the world by moving to these suburban homes that Lyn Spigel describes, but at the same time trying to connect with the world through the television. This “window on the world” allowed us to travel to far, exotic places without leaving our couch and that other wise would cost money and time to actually do. In some forms, it’s not bad. For people who are not capable of traveling outside of their neighborhoods for any reason, television helps them connect with the world, that other wise would be inaccessible to them during the late 1940s and 50s.
I would say that television has been there all the time or at least the idea of communicating in this form. I’m sure that in Roman times, they would have wanted swifter forms of communication, but the times were not advanced enough for television. It’s as if man wants to communicate with another man, but doesn’t want the laborious, physical contact. Television still fits the same role as it did when it first started. It communicates us with the world in a way that the Romans were not able to communicate with each other from great distances.
Now television is more advanced and has found its way onto the Internet. Television is evolving as humanity evolves. Now I can actually talk back to the television and actually get a response from, hopefully, another human being. This new evolved form of television, not only shows me the world, but also interacts with me. Not only can I watch America’s Got Talent, but I can also tweet Howie Mandel on what an amazing performance I just saw. I can finally give a standing ovation from my living room! I’m disconnected from the world, but at the same time I am connected and interacting with the world through television.
One aspect in which television was portrayed as something negative was when an article published by the American Home in 1951 explained how to hide a television with the fear of the television being able to watch what occurs on the inside of the owner’s home. This paranoia of the world being able to peep into your home spawned people to conceal the television with cabinets and doors. This idea of “window on the world” could be seen as you, the owner, being able to watch what goes on in the world through the broadcasts. However, there was also the unknown about the new technology that made people question if the TV in their home was used as surveillance. Today, this paranoia has obviously faded as in an average American home, here is more than one set of TV and many exploitations of television capabilities such as DVD players and entertainment systems. But, the idea of the “window on the world” could still be said today. With the advancement of satellite systems, TV could broadcast international programs that give a light onto “world news”. For example, the broadcast of conflicts in Syria today could not be replicated in the 1950’s; rather, domestic issues would be the concentration of news broadcast stations (although very few stories could be broadcasted given the level of technology then).
When referring to TV of the late 40s to mid-50s as a “window on the world” the word “window” suggests that the viewer in on the outside looking in and according to Spiegel TV was exactly that. It was a way for viewers to keep their distance from the world while imagining that their home was a part of the greater public domain because of the inclusion of a TV set in their living space. With the advent of the television people no longer had to leave there home and enter the public sphere to witness mass culture. With television audiences can simultaneously disconnect from their immediate worlds right outside of their doors and connect themselves to the wider world portrayed on television.
This concept of television as a “window on the world” is still relevant today. We don’t need to experience our immediate first-hand news or stories with our own eyes to know what is going on out in the world now our knowledge of the world is really comprised of second-hand experience that we acquire through watching TV and the internet. In fact, most of our experiences are second-hand in the way that because of this technology we know what it might be like to visit far away places or to be in the families that we see on sitcoms. TV as a “window on the world” has helped us to experience more things than we could ever possibly experience by ourselves with our own single bodies.
It is hard to disagree that in both the period between 1948-1955 and today, television acts as a window into other worlds. Whether it allows us to see a country across the globe, or a typical family that could be found at the end of our street, the television gives us a voyeuristic perspective on the world. We can be involved in an affair because it is in our living room, even though it is being filmed in a different city. The viewer is actively involved and entertained while having the pleasure of being both close and far away from the action. The viewer is separated by the screen, or how a window keeps us protected from the outside world.
Much like a window has drapes to hide the house from the outside world, the original intent was to camouflage the television set in order to keep peace with the home decor. According to Spigel's article, women's magazines frequently gave tips on cabinets to cloak the television because it was a distraction to certain house gatherings and functions. When the television was not in use, it was meant to be hidden.
When the television was in use, it was similar to a fireplace. It was a location where the family unit could gather and be entertained. Together, a family could enjoy each others company as well as the program they saw. Together they could see things they have never seen before, allowing them to share in a new experience together.
Today we use this window into an outside world in a similar way. We gather with friends and family and have proverbial "viewing parties" or we discuss every moment of a program via social networking sites. Now, we maybe more accepting of seeing television in an average family household because that is the new focus of the living room. It is understood as the new fireplace: the new place of family gathering. The focus of a house today is to have an in home theater or mass entertainment system. Though that maybe a difference, we still are amazed by spectacles of television. We still gain the togetherness that we have in the past that this window into new experiences provides.
When I look out my window, I am still seeing the world through my own eyes. When I look into a television screen, I am watching something filtered through the minds of a myriad of personnel, including writers, directors, and television executives. If it’s a window, then it’s certainly tinted.
When the television was first being marketed to Americans at the beginning of the cold war, it was poised as a “window on the world.” In a sense, it was. Watching the television, viewers could slip into a state where they saw scenes from all over the world. News broadcasts brought the world into the home, variety shows brought vaudeville into the living room, and sitcoms and dramas gave viewers what were essentially a front row seats to the theatre. Yet, all of these genres of television were constructed by a team. Each of these genres presented the world to the viewer through distinct lenses. News reports were presented by white men and fictional entertainment had to find a way to involve advertisements directly into the show. The wonderfully clever George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, for example, frequently had to interrupt the action to present ads for their sponsor, Carnation Evaporated Milk.
Today, television is just as twisted a view port into the world as it was sixty years ago. Television dramas and sitcoms remain artifices explicitly constructed for entertainment, but the state of television news has deteriorated significantly. The reports filed and televised on twenty-four hour news stations tend to gloss over details, be filtered through ideological biases, and sensationalist. Their broadcasts fill the screen with text both bold and small, and extravagant graphics, and feature talking head conversations that more often than not climax in shouting matches. Either too little information is presented or so much information is put forth that is drowned out in a sea of noise. The window remains tinted.
The idea of television, along with moving picture in general must have been a marvelous thing to witness during its initial creation. The idea that through this small box one can see a wholly different world than what is all around them must have been revolutionary. In these early stages television was described as a “window on the world”, and I would say that this must have been absolutely true for those living during this time, though I would argue that it has evolved into something different in today’s society.
During the 1950’s the television must have acted like a window on the world, because it seemed to be such a relatively accurate representation of the world, and one that people had never seen before. It was more realism than film could offer, and it incorporated both sound and moving picture, and it was current and continuously changing, just as the world is. It was a way of entertainment, and a form of escape for those who couldn’t travel or see live shows; they could simply turn on their television and be whisked away.
In present day I believe television has evolved to be something very different. It has become an intense form of persuasion and copious advertising, though also I see much more of a connection between television and film. Today we see less and less campy talk shows, and instead an increase in long TV dramas such as Breaking Bad, or Game of Thrones. These shows resemble the plot and narrative structure of films more and more, and in this way I believe TV has become less of a window and more of a mode of storytelling today.
According to Lynn Spigel, television figured as a “window on the world” during the period of 1948-1955 because, just by gazing into the screen, spectators experienced a view that maintained distance from the world physically but connected to the world imaginatively (Spigel 6). From the private spheres of their living rooms, television allowed spectators to look into the domestic lives of Hollywood performers in the 50’s and gives spectators a glimpse into the professional lives of 50’s advertisers today. During the reading, I was especially drawn to the pages discussing television’s effect upon romantic lives. Spigel writes that the “fear of surveillance was symptomatic of many statements which expressed profound anxieties about television’s control over human vision in the home – especially in terms of its disruptive effects on the relationship between the couple” (Spigel 27). I think the Internet fulfills this role today that television played then. So, while viewers feared that television would spy a dishonest spouse during the period of 1948-1955, I think users fear that the Internet will unmask a lying lover today. From webpage histories to archived emails to politician’s text messages, the Internet seems the most likely medium to expose a cheater today. Other than cheaters, users, especially in the collegiate demographic, fear that an inappropriate photo or post will surface on the Internet and will sacrifice their career. This fear of television’s surveillance during the period of 1948-1955 and the fear of Internet surveillance today suggests that, though the medium evolves, people’s uncertainty about the latest technology’s infiltration of their private lives remains.
According to Spigel, at a time when homes were encouraged to "erase spatial barriers" and "bring nature into the home," television become the ultimate tool in accomplishing these aesthetic goals. Spigel talked a lot about woman trying to create a utopian “home of tomorrow.” This led to her assertion that the connection between the dream of a utopian housing design by bringing nature into the home and the “technological solutions to distance” both contributed to television’s rapid growth during this period. These two tendencies during this time broke down the spatial barriers separating the home from the rest of the world allowing for individuals and families to experience the varied cultures and wonders the world had to offer without leaving the comfort of their own home.
Television today not only fulfills a similar role today, but takes it to an entirely new level. Nature shows give us glimpses into the wide variety of landscapes our world has to offer. Fantasy and animated shows give us an inside look into the creativity and imagination of other citizens of the world. Television today has gone beyond simply breaking down spatial barriers, but has in fact given us the opportunity to look into the different possibilities life has to offer. Whereas the television of the post-war era was merely scratching the surface of its potential, today television has expanded exponentially to encompass an extensive variety of genres, which give us multiple perspectives of our world as a whole. In other words, television during the post-war period of 1948-1955 was a “window on the world,” but television today gives us “windows on the world.”
Spigel spends a lot of time giving examples of how early television aimed to differentiate itself as a medium through its similarities to other known media. It is like theater, but the angles are superior; things like facial expressions are seem much more clearly because owning a television means owning the best seat in the house. If one is watching a television program, one has a better view than any seat in a theater, whether live action or movie. Television is also, she explains, similar to reality in the way that sets are designed to make the audience feel it is within the action. Characters address both sponsors and audiences in ways unseen by either theater productions or films. This all draws into the "window to the world" examination of television in that it fosters intimacy in ways unlike other mediums. It more successfully is this great "window" because it can be incorporated into both a family's rituals as well as their physical space. Exposure to new ideas, new places, and even new people no longer requires leaving the home or disrupting a routine.
Today, obviously technology has shifted this sort of analysis of the medium, but I don't think that the general principles have fallen away. Television absolutely remains a way to experience culture without really "experiencing" anything, in that the viewer's physical environment is likely unchanging, unstimulating, and domestic. The discrepancy today is with both programming and platform. As far as programming, there is not the active attempt to foster some sort of pseudo-friendship between audience and characters. Advertisements are no longer endorsed by casts if they are included within the discourse of a program, but snuck in subconsciously and subliminally. Audiences may form attachments to certain characters, but usually for reasons that they are so outside the realm of their reality, rather than a relatable next door neighbor type (here I think of the modern popularity of the period piece, of the drama, of the absurdist comedies). Additionally, television is actually fleeing from this original, radio-inspired setup of your culture being worked into a daily routine. Smartphones, Netflix, etc. all weaken the importance of continuity, and I would argue make the television experience more concentrated, but also more ephemeral. In which case, this notion of it being a "meaningful" (arguable) but also convenient source of culture is diminished to a certain extent, in that shows audiences binge view are not kept for any significant amount of time in the memories of the viewer.
Spigel introduces a myriad of ways in which television served as a window to the world. One main focus of this article is the ways in which television served as a window to bring the outer public world into the isolated home of the growing pool of suburbanites. Sitcom sets arranged themselves in a way that were spacious and open to grand vistas in the background that exposed the in-home audience to scenes of the far out world, or just public spaces of nature or urban space.
Not only did the small screen bring public space into the isolated private suburban home, but it also allowed the at-home viewers to feel as though they were part of a public audience. Television took a different track from voyeuristic film by using laugh tracks, stagey sets, and camera cuts that mirrored the recording of theater to give the audience a feeling of being there at the recording. It was as if they could have a communal, theatrical experience without ever leaving their living room.
Television (mostly fiction television), in my opinion, is taking a very different approach to brining the world to its viewers today. In today's technology driven world, we no longer need television show sets to show us video or images of sights out of reach; we have news clips and millions of videos searchable on the internet. The outer world is thrust upon us so frequently through the media and our technology that a need for being brought into the public space from our private isolations is obsolete. Therefore, it is not surprising that the multi-cam sitcom is dying in recent years, being replaced with television shows that allow us to leave our overly public lives for other private lives in a more filmic, voyeuristic way. Even the mocumentary, though definitely not voyeuristic, is the opposite of communal viewing because it points to the presence of the camera which clearly draws a wall between the viewer and the viewed.
We also do not consume media in a communal way like before but as individuals at our personal computers. With instant stream, television viewing has become less like being a member in an audience watching a performance and more like being a reader of a book. The experience is highly personal and individualized with a wide variety of material to be viewed as privately as you wish whenever you care to open your laptop. Our pleasure from fiction television no longer comes from sharing laughs in the living room, but from personal immersion into another world.
Yes, like before, television transports us from one world to another, but in the reverse way that Spigel recorded in her time. Before, television took the viewers in the new and isolating suburbia and brought them into the public world. Today, television takes us from public-saturated lives of constant newsfeeds, social media, emails, video chatting, and texting; and it lands us in personal worlds in which we can feel only we ourselves are looking.
Television, like no other medium before it, was able “to bring ‘another world’ into the home” (6) for American families in the both 1950s and arguably today. In a way, it brought “’the world to people’s doorsteps’” (6). Suddenly, a living room was no longer just four walls and floor: there was a screen that showed any story that people could dream up. Everything from sitcoms like I Love Lucy to advertisements for the televisions themselves showed exotic locations and exciting new opportunities. Even if someone may not have the ability to see new cultures and lifestyles in person, they could view it on their televisions. It was it’s own little “global village” (10), right there in the new utopia of the suburban home. I think that this ideal of the television as a “window to the world” still holds true today, however on a lesser scale in some respects. On one hand, we have the technology to capture so many amazing aspects of the natural world and to create our own worlds through special effects that was never available to those in the 50s. However, there are now many more mediums, such as the Internet, that people use to “see the world”. The physical television set is also now not such a fixture in the American home. Many people can access all their media from their mobile phones, computers, or other electronic devices without gathering around the television in the family living space.
Lynn Spigel wrote of television’s ability to transport the viewer experiencing it to new places and cultures they would naturally have trouble seeing. In a pretty, compact style, television allowed people in the 1950s to “[bring] to the home a grand illusion of space while also fulfilling the ‘easy living,’ […] housing design” (6). Thus, with television sets, people comfortably decorated their new suburban homes whilst exploring the great vistas of the world. I believe television continues to accomplish a similar feat today.
Nowadays, with the astronomical advancements in computing and effects, television remains as a window on the world, albeit a somewhat distorted one. Programming still allows modern people adventures throughout our world, complete with realistic happenings and storylines. I can turn on my TV and be transported to New York, Rome, or Antarctica; and imagine myself in these places for real. However, technology has also made it possible to see ourselves on different planets, different worlds, or even different universes. While these concepts were explored in early television, nowadays I can watch these programs and have them feel real. Early television allowed for realistic dramas and such set in our world, but felt far too fake when trying to replicate others. Television indeed lets us view the world from the comfort of our homes as it did in the past. The big difference in modern times is the ability to distort the glass and give us access to new planes and dimensions of existence to experience.
During the early 1950s in postwar America, there was a movement in which people were migrating from cities to suburbia, which offered more privacy and domesticity, and in turn gave somewhat of a new meaning to private life. The remoteness brought upon by rural living, created an attraction to the outside world, and places that were far and beyond. According to Lynn Spigel, in a way, the introduction of the television brought the outside world into private homes, which depicts the progression of the times. Noting the obsession of experiencing the greater world, the television was marketed as a “global village in a box,” (9) where maximum extension met minimum effort, (7) in that people were theoretically transported to another “world” without having to leave their own homes. Moreover, as a home entertainment center, shows on TV were constructed to cater to the audiences’ infatuation of the outside world. This fascination with distant places was then depicted in these programs, enhancing the “window on the world” phenomenon.
Today, I find that television acts in a somewhat similar way, in that people are interested in the lives of others, however, not so much in being transported to other places. While people in the late 1940s and early 1950s were limited in the sense that travel was not as accessible as it is today, modern-day audiences are able to voyage and see the world on first hand accounts. Therefore, the captivation of far-away places is not as strong today as it was in earlier times. With that, I do see television nowadays as a “window on the world,” however, one that mimics the current ideologies of the times. Just as sit-coms in the 50s catered to the interests of the people then, television shows today, reflect the curiosities of audiences now.
To Spiegel, early television provided a way to view aspects of the world which one might not otherwise be able to view. The main goal of television of the time was to satisfy, as Spiegel put it, an "obsession with far-away places". Television provided a way to go places without actually spending money and going places. Today, immersing the crowd in another world is not necessarily the main goal, but it is one of the major goals.
Early television went about its goals in a number of ways, including the use of the actual settings of the show. The Burns and Allen show used windows to illustrate the main characters' backyard. Make Room for Daddy used windows to provide an illustrated view of New York City. Other shows would have their characters go on vacation or travel for a season, as an opportunity to provide the viewer with a view of other places in the world.
Television advertisements also illustrated television's goal. Advertisements of the time often had a television placed with a backdrop of famous or scenic places such as the Eiffel Tower in the background. One advertisement placed the television at home plate of a baseball stadium, attempting to illustrate how television could take you to the game. The decline in sales for spectator events of the time supports the idea that television pursued and succeeded in its goals.
Today, television is more than ever able to immerse the viewer into another world. Technological advances in picture quality and the tools available to shows today. Television shows today are able to inform and immerse the audience through educational shows on science. People can take a trip to the rain forest or the desert. They're able to get news from around the world. Dramas and comedies are graphically more immersing than they have been in the past. However, I would venture to say that television today often has bigger goals than just immersing the audience. Dramas today are deeper and smarter than dramas of the past. I would say that they're even comparable to books at times. They are often able to symbolically or metaphorically provide social commentaries, especially on moral issues - something I don't think they did as much in the past. News is able to act as propaganda to persuade people to other political or social views. Earlier television seems to mostly have been for entertainment value. Television today moves beyond that.
During the period of 1948 to 1955, television served as a point of perspective to the world that was previously unheard of. At that time period, television was a way for people to gain perspective into the lives of others and to connect with different ways of life. However, I think today, television functions more as a form of escapism than a point of connection.
In her article, Spigel’s describes television in the late forties and early fifties as “the ultimate expression of progress in utopian statements concerning man’s ability to conquer and to domesticate space.” It was a symbol for both what man had the ability to do technologically as well as what was possible out in the world (in terms of what was shown on television differentiating from the lives of those with the sets).
Currently, I believe that television serves as an escape as opposed to a point of connectivity. The classic fifties suburban lifestyle is no longer a reality and most people watch television alone and often on their computers as opposed to their television sets. The point of connectivity nowadays exists in the fan networks of popular shows and keeping up with them as opposed to actually watching the shows together.
On the topic of television operating as a “window on the world,” Lynn Spigel approaches it from multiple angles. She examines TV as giving people a view of locations they desire to see but are unable to travel to themselves, such as the Eiffel Tower. She also talks about it as an extension of the new interior design of homes to merge the inside world with the outside world. Not only were living areas more spacious with fewer wall divisions and larger glass windows, but the television provided more insight into the world around them and brought nature and other outdoor elements into the home. Another effect Lynn Spigel brings up is that the television being a “window on the world” allows the private home to become a more connected part of the public community. During the postwar era, many families left the cities and occupied suburbs where they resided in their own private space. Committees within the communities and television stations bringing news, commercials, and programs that were about the public and enjoyed by the public remedied this physical separation from the public. As a result, the public was brought together despite the physical separation. I believe that television still fulfills some aspects of this role in society but it has definitely evolved. I believe it still brings the public together despite physical barriers. Many people are united to witness reality competition shows in real time. Others use different television programs to relate with other people and find a common ground for conversation. Even more so, it is a “window on the world” through channels dedicated entirely to news, updated constantly with local and international stories. I believe that it is a “window on the world,” but the focus of that window has changed since television began. We are less concerned with looking at different locations and the stereotypes of society members, but rather we wish to examine the lives of people of all occupation, race, gender, sexuality, and social status. We are more fascinated by the diversity of human life and points of view than by the variation of location. I also feel that television has strayed from what the people in the 1950s believed that television would be in terms of fulfilling that role at this time. The main example is the advertisements and predictions in the 1950s that television would replace theaters and cinemas and become not only the primary, but sole medium of entertainment. However, people still enjoy going to live performances and will pay to see movies at the cinema instead of waiting for it to come to television. This is because, in my opinion, television can continue to mimic the other mediums more and more precisely, but it will not be able to replace the experience of the cinema or theater.
With the construction of a new suburbia in the 1950s, postwar middle-class families became more interested in the world beyond their familiar surroundings. Individuals, especially women, were curious as to what lied outside their rural home. Whether it be about another family or a foreign place, any information grew fascinating to those within an isolated suburban community. Fortunately, according to Spigel, the TV allowed individuals to gain this wanted knowledge from the private sector of their own home. As a form of entertainment, individuals were able to consume TV programs from the comfort of their couch, privatizing and domesticating the spectatorship experience. With that said, the TV brought nature inside the household as well. As Spigel noted, the TV acted as a "window on the world," transporting individuals to another "world" of distant places and the lives of others. In other words, the "global village in a box" offered an emergence of private and public space with the eradication of the distance between domesticity and life beyond closed doors (9).
Overall, it appears as if individuals watched TV in the 1950s for pleasure but, more so, to fulfill their curiosity of the world. Evidently, individuals did not have the access we do today to travel or easily access information about individuals, which heightened their desire to educate themselves. Therefore, although the TV still relays information of the world around us, it seems as if the intention of watching TV has changed.
Lynn Spigel calls television, in the time from 1948 – 1955, a “window on the world”. What she means by this is that television was a way to bring all of the problems, happenings and events going on in the world right into the American household, and it was as easy as looking through a pane of glass. It was a way of looking at the world without actually being there, much like a window is a way of looking outside without actually being outside. It was a way of looking at what other people had and how they lived their lives from the comfort of your living room couch. Every program transported a family to a new place or time where they can see into the cultures and the styling of that particular setting without changing their own.
Today things are a bit different. Yes, the television still serves a lot of the same purposes that it did back in the 1950s, but today we have many other ways of accessing what the television tells about the outside world. “Windows on the world” now come in many different shapes and sizes. The internet is one of the major players in bringing the world into the homes of Americans. Now, you don’t even need to be in your house to experience said window. Smartphones and tablets allow you to bring your “window” outside of the house and to always have the ability to view into different parts of the world without being there. That being said, news and talk shows still keep Americans updated on what is going on day in and day out.
I think that television has expanded beyond simply being a window to the remainder of the world. While there are still programs like National Geographic's Planet Earth that present different locales on the planet to the people watching TV, it seems that a lot of the attention has shifted to extra-worldly places. I think this is partially explained by the fact the space race and the first moon landing happened between the introduction of television and now.
ReplyDeleteTelevision also offers people windows into the lives of others more now than it did in the past. It seems that people are becoming increasingly interested in others' careers with the emergence of many law dramas, crime dramas and spy dramas that has occurred recently. There is also the more realistic side to this obsession with programs like those found on Investigation Discovery or Undercover Boss. This fulfills a similar role in people's lives to a window to the world, it allows for people to escape their own jobs and peek into the lives of people that have careers that seem more interesting than their own.
Even though the means have changed over the years, the end goal of television has stayed largely the same. It allows people to transport themselves to different places or just to generally escape from their own lives for brief periods of time.
I believe that the popularity of TV partially comes from the opportunity that it provides. From the comfort of your own home you can see the pyramids or hear the noises of a rainforest. People used TV as this 'window on the world' to create spectacular experiences and provide phenomenal sights. As Spigel states on the topic of rustic home decor, "Although the 1950s witnessed the most extreme preoccupation with the merging of indoor and outdoor space, this ideal had been part of the model for interior design in the first suburban houses of the latter nineteenth century," (Spigel 8). Television provided an easy way to merge indoor and outdoor space with the possibility of staying in your home and viewing the spectacular sights of the world. This convenience of accessibility to the world made TV a perfect fit to this rustic style of home-living. This trend helped expedite the process of making TV a common aspect of people's homes.
ReplyDeleteOn a more personal level sitcoms introduced viewers to a new family/couple like a friendly neighbor. Vaudeville acts introduced people to exciting talents and original talents. This TV window provided people an opportunity to experience new things within the comfort of their own homes. Currently, however, the availability of the 'window on the world' isn't as much dependent on television. The internet and other sources of media provide the same material in a more accessible fashion. TV programs still try to introduce viewers to new things through this 'window on the world', but competition with these other forms necessitate the need to branch out. Some networks use shows about vampires and werewolves to introduced people to things they wouldn't see in their day-to-day lives. Shows like Parenthood and Modern Family introduce viewers to a variety of familial dramas in a way that it is difficult for anyone to have experienced all of them.
The 1950 concept of a 'Window on the World' used to introduce people to things that they couldn't typically see. Though the programs and themes may be different television has evolved to continue to introduce people to things that they can't typically see.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1950s, television promised to show its consumers a window on the world. Lynn Spigel discusses television’s “ability to bring ‘another world’ into the home” and merge the outside world with the inside (7). I think that today, one could still say that television serves this function, but that the function has a somewhat different meaning. Spigel mentions a 1953 Emerson advertisement proclaiming “a TV picture so clear, so sharp… you’ll think you’re at the movies!” (13). This ad seems to say that back then, television imitated cinema. There were other advertisements showing things like home theaters, but I think that now television imitates cinema in a different way. The tone, color, lighting, special effects, and character and plot development of current television exhibit a closer resemblance to cinema than programs of the past. A couple strong examples of this are Breaking Bad and Mad Men, with their very high production value and lack of a procedural plot.
ReplyDeleteThe 1953 Emerson ad is also interesting because it sort of foreshadows the emergence of high-definition television some 40 or 50 years in advance. I was compelled by Spigel’s examples of ads that depicted television as something that breaks the boundaries of reality by putting you in the environment onscreen. Television has always had a determined goal of getting closer to reality. Live showings of sports and news assure the viewer that they’re getting the very best view of the reality taking place. As Spigel states, “TV was ideally intended to perfect the experience of watching a live performance” (23).
Television has and continues to be a “maximum extension of the perceived environment with a mininmum of effort”—it’s amazing to think that as far as TV has expanded now, you can sit on the couch and take in an infinite amount of knowledge (7). Of course, sometimes this window on the world gets a bit too close for comfort. Reality shows depicting caricatures of pseudo-celebrities are simply on the air because these people do ridiculous things that somehow draw many of us in. Needless to say, reality shows ironically don’t accurately portray reality.
The merging of the inside and outside worlds that Spigel discusses has changed over time. Today people have more ability to travel to some of the places they only saw on their TV screens, so now TV shows a lot of things that no one or most people could never witness. Violence is great example of this on shows like Hannibal, Dexter, and Bates Motel. We’re shown graphic imagery we will never encounter in the real world. Perhaps TV is not a window on our world per se, but rather a window into a different world. Spigel wrote, “Television brought to the home a vision of the world which the human eye itself could never see,” but now it has expanded beyond the growing boundaries of what humans can see and closer to what the mind can imagine (27).
It seems like man is trying to disconnect himself from the world by moving to these suburban homes that Lyn Spigel describes, but at the same time trying to connect with the world through the television. This “window on the world” allowed us to travel to far, exotic places without leaving our couch and that other wise would cost money and time to actually do. In some forms, it’s not bad. For people who are not capable of traveling outside of their neighborhoods for any reason, television helps them connect with the world, that other wise would be inaccessible to them during the late 1940s and 50s.
ReplyDeleteI would say that television has been there all the time or at least the idea of communicating in this form. I’m sure that in Roman times, they would have wanted swifter forms of communication, but the times were not advanced enough for television. It’s as if man wants to communicate with another man, but doesn’t want the laborious, physical contact. Television still fits the same role as it did when it first started. It communicates us with the world in a way that the Romans were not able to communicate with each other from great distances.
Now television is more advanced and has found its way onto the Internet. Television is evolving as humanity evolves. Now I can actually talk back to the television and actually get a response from, hopefully, another human being. This new evolved form of television, not only shows me the world, but also interacts with me. Not only can I watch America’s Got Talent, but I can also tweet Howie Mandel on what an amazing performance I just saw. I can finally give a standing ovation from my living room! I’m disconnected from the world, but at the same time I am connected and interacting with the world through television.
One aspect in which television was portrayed as something negative was when an article published by the American Home in 1951 explained how to hide a television with the fear of the television being able to watch what occurs on the inside of the owner’s home. This paranoia of the world being able to peep into your home spawned people to conceal the television with cabinets and doors. This idea of “window on the world” could be seen as you, the owner, being able to watch what goes on in the world through the broadcasts. However, there was also the unknown about the new technology that made people question if the TV in their home was used as surveillance.
ReplyDeleteToday, this paranoia has obviously faded as in an average American home, here is more than one set of TV and many exploitations of television capabilities such as DVD players and entertainment systems. But, the idea of the “window on the world” could still be said today. With the advancement of satellite systems, TV could broadcast international programs that give a light onto “world news”. For example, the broadcast of conflicts in Syria today could not be replicated in the 1950’s; rather, domestic issues would be the concentration of news broadcast stations (although very few stories could be broadcasted given the level of technology then).
When referring to TV of the late 40s to mid-50s as a “window on the world” the word “window” suggests that the viewer in on the outside looking in and according to Spiegel TV was exactly that. It was a way for viewers to keep their distance from the world while imagining that their home was a part of the greater public domain because of the inclusion of a TV set in their living space. With the advent of the television people no longer had to leave there home and enter the public sphere to witness mass culture. With television audiences can simultaneously disconnect from their immediate worlds right outside of their doors and connect themselves to the wider world portrayed on television.
ReplyDeleteThis concept of television as a “window on the world” is still relevant today. We don’t need to experience our immediate first-hand news or stories with our own eyes to know what is going on out in the world now our knowledge of the world is really comprised of second-hand experience that we acquire through watching TV and the internet. In fact, most of our experiences are second-hand in the way that because of this technology we know what it might be like to visit far away places or to be in the families that we see on sitcoms. TV as a “window on the world” has helped us to experience more things than we could ever possibly experience by ourselves with our own single bodies.
It is hard to disagree that in both the period between 1948-1955 and today, television acts as a window into other worlds. Whether it allows us to see a country across the globe, or a typical family that could be found at the end of our street, the television gives us a voyeuristic perspective on the world. We can be involved in an affair because it is in our living room, even though it is being filmed in a different city. The viewer is actively involved and entertained while having the pleasure of being both close and far away from the action. The viewer is separated by the screen, or how a window keeps us protected from the outside world.
ReplyDeleteMuch like a window has drapes to hide the house from the outside world, the original intent was to camouflage the television set in order to keep peace with the home decor. According to Spigel's article, women's magazines frequently gave tips on cabinets to cloak the television because it was a distraction to certain house gatherings and functions. When the television was not in use, it was meant to be hidden.
When the television was in use, it was similar to a fireplace. It was a location where the family unit could gather and be entertained. Together, a family could enjoy each others company as well as the program they saw. Together they could see things they have never seen before, allowing them to share in a new experience together.
Today we use this window into an outside world in a similar way. We gather with friends and family and have proverbial "viewing parties" or we discuss every moment of a program via social networking sites. Now, we maybe more accepting of seeing television in an average family household because that is the new focus of the living room. It is understood as the new fireplace: the new place of family gathering. The focus of a house today is to have an in home theater or mass entertainment system. Though that maybe a difference, we still are amazed by spectacles of television. We still gain the togetherness that we have in the past that this window into new experiences provides.
When I look out my window, I am still seeing the world through my own eyes. When I look into a television screen, I am watching something filtered through the minds of a myriad of personnel, including writers, directors, and television executives. If it’s a window, then it’s certainly tinted.
ReplyDeleteWhen the television was first being marketed to Americans at the beginning of the cold war, it was poised as a “window on the world.” In a sense, it was. Watching the television, viewers could slip into a state where they saw scenes from all over the world. News broadcasts brought the world into the home, variety shows brought vaudeville into the living room, and sitcoms and dramas gave viewers what were essentially a front row seats to the theatre. Yet, all of these genres of television were constructed by a team. Each of these genres presented the world to the viewer through distinct lenses. News reports were presented by white men and fictional entertainment had to find a way to involve advertisements directly into the show. The wonderfully clever George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, for example, frequently had to interrupt the action to present ads for their sponsor, Carnation Evaporated Milk.
Today, television is just as twisted a view port into the world as it was sixty years ago. Television dramas and sitcoms remain artifices explicitly constructed for entertainment, but the state of television news has deteriorated significantly. The reports filed and televised on twenty-four hour news stations tend to gloss over details, be filtered through ideological biases, and sensationalist. Their broadcasts fill the screen with text both bold and small, and extravagant graphics, and feature talking head conversations that more often than not climax in shouting matches. Either too little information is presented or so much information is put forth that is drowned out in a sea of noise. The window remains tinted.
The idea of television, along with moving picture in general must have been a marvelous thing to witness during its initial creation. The idea that through this small box one can see a wholly different world than what is all around them must have been revolutionary. In these early stages television was described as a “window on the world”, and I would say that this must have been absolutely true for those living during this time, though I would argue that it has evolved into something different in today’s society.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 1950’s the television must have acted like a window on the world, because it seemed to be such a relatively accurate representation of the world, and one that people had never seen before. It was more realism than film could offer, and it incorporated both sound and moving picture, and it was current and continuously changing, just as the world is. It was a way of entertainment, and a form of escape for those who couldn’t travel or see live shows; they could simply turn on their television and be whisked away.
In present day I believe television has evolved to be something very different. It has become an intense form of persuasion and copious advertising, though also I see much more of a connection between television and film. Today we see less and less campy talk shows, and instead an increase in long TV dramas such as Breaking Bad, or Game of Thrones. These shows resemble the plot and narrative structure of films more and more, and in this way I believe TV has become less of a window and more of a mode of storytelling today.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lynn Spigel, television figured as a “window on the world” during the period of 1948-1955 because, just by gazing into the screen, spectators experienced a view that maintained distance from the world physically but connected to the world imaginatively (Spigel 6). From the private spheres of their living rooms, television allowed spectators to look into the domestic lives of Hollywood performers in the 50’s and gives spectators a glimpse into the professional lives of 50’s advertisers today.
ReplyDeleteDuring the reading, I was especially drawn to the pages discussing television’s effect upon romantic lives. Spigel writes that the “fear of surveillance was symptomatic of many statements which expressed profound anxieties about television’s control over human vision in the home – especially in terms of its disruptive effects on the relationship between the couple” (Spigel 27). I think the Internet fulfills this role today that television played then. So, while viewers feared that television would spy a dishonest spouse during the period of 1948-1955, I think users fear that the Internet will unmask a lying lover today. From webpage histories to archived emails to politician’s text messages, the Internet seems the most likely medium to expose a cheater today. Other than cheaters, users, especially in the collegiate demographic, fear that an inappropriate photo or post will surface on the Internet and will sacrifice their career. This fear of television’s surveillance during the period of 1948-1955 and the fear of Internet surveillance today suggests that, though the medium evolves, people’s uncertainty about the latest technology’s infiltration of their private lives remains.
According to Spigel, at a time when homes were encouraged to "erase spatial barriers" and "bring nature into the home," television become the ultimate tool in accomplishing these aesthetic goals. Spigel talked a lot about woman trying to create a utopian “home of tomorrow.” This led to her assertion that the connection between the dream of a utopian housing design by bringing nature into the home and the “technological solutions to distance” both contributed to television’s rapid growth during this period. These two tendencies during this time broke down the spatial barriers separating the home from the rest of the world allowing for individuals and families to experience the varied cultures and wonders the world had to offer without leaving the comfort of their own home.
ReplyDeleteTelevision today not only fulfills a similar role today, but takes it to an entirely new level. Nature shows give us glimpses into the wide variety of landscapes our world has to offer. Fantasy and animated shows give us an inside look into the creativity and imagination of other citizens of the world. Television today has gone beyond simply breaking down spatial barriers, but has in fact given us the opportunity to look into the different possibilities life has to offer. Whereas the television of the post-war era was merely scratching the surface of its potential, today television has expanded exponentially to encompass an extensive variety of genres, which give us multiple perspectives of our world as a whole. In other words, television during the post-war period of 1948-1955 was a “window on the world,” but television today gives us “windows on the world.”
Spigel spends a lot of time giving examples of how early television aimed to differentiate itself as a medium through its similarities to other known media. It is like theater, but the angles are superior; things like facial expressions are seem much more clearly because owning a television means owning the best seat in the house. If one is watching a television program, one has a better view than any seat in a theater, whether live action or movie. Television is also, she explains, similar to reality in the way that sets are designed to make the audience feel it is within the action. Characters address both sponsors and audiences in ways unseen by either theater productions or films. This all draws into the "window to the world" examination of television in that it fosters intimacy in ways unlike other mediums. It more successfully is this great "window" because it can be incorporated into both a family's rituals as well as their physical space. Exposure to new ideas, new places, and even new people no longer requires leaving the home or disrupting a routine.
ReplyDeleteToday, obviously technology has shifted this sort of analysis of the medium, but I don't think that the general principles have fallen away. Television absolutely remains a way to experience culture without really "experiencing" anything, in that the viewer's physical environment is likely unchanging, unstimulating, and domestic. The discrepancy today is with both programming and platform. As far as programming, there is not the active attempt to foster some sort of pseudo-friendship between audience and characters. Advertisements are no longer endorsed by casts if they are included within the discourse of a program, but snuck in subconsciously and subliminally. Audiences may form attachments to certain characters, but usually for reasons that they are so outside the realm of their reality, rather than a relatable next door neighbor type (here I think of the modern popularity of the period piece, of the drama, of the absurdist comedies). Additionally, television is actually fleeing from this original, radio-inspired setup of your culture being worked into a daily routine. Smartphones, Netflix, etc. all weaken the importance of continuity, and I would argue make the television experience more concentrated, but also more ephemeral. In which case, this notion of it being a "meaningful" (arguable) but also convenient source of culture is diminished to a certain extent, in that shows audiences binge view are not kept for any significant amount of time in the memories of the viewer.
Spigel introduces a myriad of ways in which television served as a window to the world. One main focus of this article is the ways in which television served as a window to bring the outer public world into the isolated home of the growing pool of suburbanites. Sitcom sets arranged themselves in a way that were spacious and open to grand vistas in the background that exposed the in-home audience to scenes of the far out world, or just public spaces of nature or urban space.
ReplyDeleteNot only did the small screen bring public space into the isolated private suburban home, but it also allowed the at-home viewers to feel as though they were part of a public audience. Television took a different track from voyeuristic film by using laugh tracks, stagey sets, and camera cuts that mirrored the recording of theater to give the audience a feeling of being there at the recording. It was as if they could have a communal, theatrical experience without ever leaving their living room.
Television (mostly fiction television), in my opinion, is taking a very different approach to brining the world to its viewers today. In today's technology driven world, we no longer need television show sets to show us video or images of sights out of reach; we have news clips and millions of videos searchable on the internet. The outer world is thrust upon us so frequently through the media and our technology that a need for being brought into the public space from our private isolations is obsolete. Therefore, it is not surprising that the multi-cam sitcom is dying in recent years, being replaced with television shows that allow us to leave our overly public lives for other private lives in a more filmic, voyeuristic way. Even the mocumentary, though definitely not voyeuristic, is the opposite of communal viewing because it points to the presence of the camera which clearly draws a wall between the viewer and the viewed.
We also do not consume media in a communal way like before but as individuals at our personal computers. With instant stream, television viewing has become less like being a member in an audience watching a performance and more like being a reader of a book. The experience is highly personal and individualized with a wide variety of material to be viewed as privately as you wish whenever you care to open your laptop. Our pleasure from fiction television no longer comes from sharing laughs in the living room, but from personal immersion into another world.
Yes, like before, television transports us from one world to another, but in the reverse way that Spigel recorded in her time. Before, television took the viewers in the new and isolating suburbia and brought them into the public world. Today, television takes us from public-saturated lives of constant newsfeeds, social media, emails, video chatting, and texting; and it lands us in personal worlds in which we can feel only we ourselves are looking.
Television, like no other medium before it, was able “to bring ‘another world’ into the home” (6) for American families in the both 1950s and arguably today. In a way, it brought “’the world to people’s doorsteps’” (6). Suddenly, a living room was no longer just four walls and floor: there was a screen that showed any story that people could dream up. Everything from sitcoms like I Love Lucy to advertisements for the televisions themselves showed exotic locations and exciting new opportunities. Even if someone may not have the ability to see new cultures and lifestyles in person, they could view it on their televisions. It was it’s own little “global village” (10), right there in the new utopia of the suburban home.
ReplyDeleteI think that this ideal of the television as a “window to the world” still holds true today, however on a lesser scale in some respects. On one hand, we have the technology to capture so many amazing aspects of the natural world and to create our own worlds through special effects that was never available to those in the 50s. However, there are now many more mediums, such as the Internet, that people use to “see the world”. The physical television set is also now not such a fixture in the American home. Many people can access all their media from their mobile phones, computers, or other electronic devices without gathering around the television in the family living space.
Lynn Spigel wrote of television’s ability to transport the viewer experiencing it to new places and cultures they would naturally have trouble seeing. In a pretty, compact style, television allowed people in the 1950s to “[bring] to the home a grand illusion of space while also fulfilling the ‘easy living,’ […] housing design” (6). Thus, with television sets, people comfortably decorated their new suburban homes whilst exploring the great vistas of the world. I believe television continues to accomplish a similar feat today.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, with the astronomical advancements in computing and effects, television remains as a window on the world, albeit a somewhat distorted one. Programming still allows modern people adventures throughout our world, complete with realistic happenings and storylines. I can turn on my TV and be transported to New York, Rome, or Antarctica; and imagine myself in these places for real. However, technology has also made it possible to see ourselves on different planets, different worlds, or even different universes. While these concepts were explored in early television, nowadays I can watch these programs and have them feel real. Early television allowed for realistic dramas and such set in our world, but felt far too fake when trying to replicate others. Television indeed lets us view the world from the comfort of our homes as it did in the past. The big difference in modern times is the ability to distort the glass and give us access to new planes and dimensions of existence to experience.
During the early 1950s in postwar America, there was a movement in which people were migrating from cities to suburbia, which offered more privacy and domesticity, and in turn gave somewhat of a new meaning to private life. The remoteness brought upon by rural living, created an attraction to the outside world, and places that were far and beyond. According to Lynn Spigel, in a way, the introduction of the television brought the outside world into private homes, which depicts the progression of the times. Noting the obsession of experiencing the greater world, the television was marketed as a “global village in a box,” (9) where maximum extension met minimum effort, (7) in that people were theoretically transported to another “world” without having to leave their own homes. Moreover, as a home entertainment center, shows on TV were constructed to cater to the audiences’ infatuation of the outside world. This fascination with distant places was then depicted in these programs, enhancing the “window on the world” phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteToday, I find that television acts in a somewhat similar way, in that people are interested in the lives of others, however, not so much in being transported to other places. While people in the late 1940s and early 1950s were limited in the sense that travel was not as accessible as it is today, modern-day audiences are able to voyage and see the world on first hand accounts. Therefore, the captivation of far-away places is not as strong today as it was in earlier times. With that, I do see television nowadays as a “window on the world,” however, one that mimics the current ideologies of the times. Just as sit-coms in the 50s catered to the interests of the people then, television shows today, reflect the curiosities of audiences now.
To Spiegel, early television provided a way to view aspects of the world which one might not otherwise be able to view. The main goal of television of the time was to satisfy, as Spiegel put it, an "obsession with far-away places". Television provided a way to go places without actually spending money and going places. Today, immersing the crowd in another world is not necessarily the main goal, but it is one of the major goals.
ReplyDeleteEarly television went about its goals in a number of ways, including the use of the actual settings of the show. The Burns and Allen show used windows to illustrate the main characters' backyard. Make Room for Daddy used windows to provide an illustrated view of New York City. Other shows would have their characters go on vacation or travel for a season, as an opportunity to provide the viewer with a view of other places in the world.
Television advertisements also illustrated television's goal. Advertisements of the time often had a television placed with a backdrop of famous or scenic places such as the Eiffel Tower in the background. One advertisement placed the television at home plate of a baseball stadium, attempting to illustrate how television could take you to the game. The decline in sales for spectator events of the time supports the idea that television pursued and succeeded in its goals.
Today, television is more than ever able to immerse the viewer into another world. Technological advances in picture quality and the tools available to shows today. Television shows today are able to inform and immerse the audience through educational shows on science. People can take a trip to the rain forest or the desert. They're able to get news from around the world. Dramas and comedies are graphically more immersing than they have been in the past. However, I would venture to say that television today often has bigger goals than just immersing the audience. Dramas today are deeper and smarter than dramas of the past. I would say that they're even comparable to books at times. They are often able to symbolically or metaphorically provide social commentaries, especially on moral issues - something I don't think they did as much in the past. News is able to act as propaganda to persuade people to other political or social views. Earlier television seems to mostly have been for entertainment value. Television today moves beyond that.
During the period of 1948 to 1955, television served as a point of perspective to the world that was previously unheard of. At that time period, television was a way for people to gain perspective into the lives of others and to connect with different ways of life. However, I think today, television functions more as a form of escapism than a point of connection.
ReplyDeleteIn her article, Spigel’s describes television in the late forties and early fifties as “the ultimate expression of progress in utopian statements concerning man’s ability to conquer and to domesticate space.” It was a symbol for both what man had the ability to do technologically as well as what was possible out in the world (in terms of what was shown on television differentiating from the lives of those with the sets).
Currently, I believe that television serves as an escape as opposed to a point of connectivity. The classic fifties suburban lifestyle is no longer a reality and most people watch television alone and often on their computers as opposed to their television sets. The point of connectivity nowadays exists in the fan networks of popular shows and keeping up with them as opposed to actually watching the shows together.
On the topic of television operating as a “window on the world,” Lynn Spigel approaches it from multiple angles. She examines TV as giving people a view of locations they desire to see but are unable to travel to themselves, such as the Eiffel Tower. She also talks about it as an extension of the new interior design of homes to merge the inside world with the outside world. Not only were living areas more spacious with fewer wall divisions and larger glass windows, but the television provided more insight into the world around them and brought nature and other outdoor elements into the home. Another effect Lynn Spigel brings up is that the television being a “window on the world” allows the private home to become a more connected part of the public community. During the postwar era, many families left the cities and occupied suburbs where they resided in their own private space. Committees within the communities and television stations bringing news, commercials, and programs that were about the public and enjoyed by the public remedied this physical separation from the public. As a result, the public was brought together despite the physical separation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that television still fulfills some aspects of this role in society but it has definitely evolved. I believe it still brings the public together despite physical barriers. Many people are united to witness reality competition shows in real time. Others use different television programs to relate with other people and find a common ground for conversation. Even more so, it is a “window on the world” through channels dedicated entirely to news, updated constantly with local and international stories. I believe that it is a “window on the world,” but the focus of that window has changed since television began. We are less concerned with looking at different locations and the stereotypes of society members, but rather we wish to examine the lives of people of all occupation, race, gender, sexuality, and social status. We are more fascinated by the diversity of human life and points of view than by the variation of location.
I also feel that television has strayed from what the people in the 1950s believed that television would be in terms of fulfilling that role at this time. The main example is the advertisements and predictions in the 1950s that television would replace theaters and cinemas and become not only the primary, but sole medium of entertainment. However, people still enjoy going to live performances and will pay to see movies at the cinema instead of waiting for it to come to television. This is because, in my opinion, television can continue to mimic the other mediums more and more precisely, but it will not be able to replace the experience of the cinema or theater.
With the construction of a new suburbia in the 1950s, postwar middle-class families became more interested in the world beyond their familiar surroundings. Individuals, especially women, were curious as to what lied outside their rural home. Whether it be about another family or a foreign place, any information grew fascinating to those within an isolated suburban community. Fortunately, according to Spigel, the TV allowed individuals to gain this wanted knowledge from the private sector of their own home. As a form of entertainment, individuals were able to consume TV programs from the comfort of their couch, privatizing and domesticating the spectatorship experience. With that said, the TV brought nature inside the household as well. As Spigel noted, the TV acted as a "window on the world," transporting individuals to another "world" of distant places and the lives of others. In other words, the "global village in a box" offered an emergence of private and public space with the eradication of the distance between domesticity and life beyond closed doors (9).
ReplyDeleteOverall, it appears as if individuals watched TV in the 1950s for pleasure but, more so, to fulfill their curiosity of the world. Evidently, individuals did not have the access we do today to travel or easily access information about individuals, which heightened their desire to educate themselves. Therefore, although the TV still relays information of the world around us, it seems as if the intention of watching TV has changed.
Lynn Spigel calls television, in the time from 1948 – 1955, a “window on the world”. What she means by this is that television was a way to bring all of the problems, happenings and events going on in the world right into the American household, and it was as easy as looking through a pane of glass. It was a way of looking at the world without actually being there, much like a window is a way of looking outside without actually being outside. It was a way of looking at what other people had and how they lived their lives from the comfort of your living room couch. Every program transported a family to a new place or time where they can see into the cultures and the styling of that particular setting without changing their own.
ReplyDeleteToday things are a bit different. Yes, the television still serves a lot of the same purposes that it did back in the 1950s, but today we have many other ways of accessing what the television tells about the outside world. “Windows on the world” now come in many different shapes and sizes. The internet is one of the major players in bringing the world into the homes of Americans. Now, you don’t even need to be in your house to experience said window. Smartphones and tablets allow you to bring your “window” outside of the house and to always have the ability to view into different parts of the world without being there. That being said, news and talk shows still keep Americans updated on what is going on day in and day out.