Feuer argues that TV’s concept of “live” is part of its ideological rhetoric, even as TV becomes “...less and less a ‘live’ medium...the medium in its own practices seem to insist more and more upon the ideology of the live, the immediate, the direct, the spontaneous, the real” (Feuer, pg. 16). In other words, TV retains its ideological hold and power over its insistence of its liveness.
Though I feel McLuhan and to a less extent William’s theory of television is outdated, I, however, feel that Feuer’s argument stands true today. TV retains its legitimacy by its insistence on being real. TV tech contributes to this belief. Now and days, we have HD TV’s with the definition continuing increasing; 3D animation attempts to kill 2D animation in Hollywood and continues more to mimic real life; and TV screens become larger and larger, sometimes filling whole living rooms. This creates a sense of reality in a space since the viewer’s major senses are enhanced. Sometimes it’s hard to distinguish, say, a 3D lake from a photo of a real lake. What is the ideological stake for the increased need for hyperrealism? What role does “real” play in ideology building and visual normalcy?
No comments:
Post a Comment