A response to John Corner

Introduction: The Becoming Topological of Culture

“…. [to find] itself simultaneously on the side of the subject and on the side of the object' (Lazzarato, 2006; see also Lury, 2007). This spatio-temporal configuration of liveness is by no means limited to television, but is, rather, characteristic of contemporary media more generally, contributing to the rise of what Eva Horn has called the 'medial a priori ' (2008: 8).…”

Finding words: Aesthetic criticism and television

“…If reflexivity is a feature of those endorsing television aesthetics as a scholarly concern, it equally constitutes a dominant aspect within accounts that voice reservations, or are sceptical, about its place and development. In a response to Corner’s article, for example, Karen Lury asserts that: ‘The first challenge is, I think, to resist the concept of ‘value’ or ‘more awkwardly’ the championing of ‘good-ness’ as the primary ambition of television studies’ and that ‘terms like ‘value’ or ‘excellence’ and ‘quality’ seem to me ways of smuggling in taste hierarchies established via criteria related to other art forms.’ (Lury, 2007: 371–372). In rejecting a focus on value, Lury proceeds to argue for a greater appreciation of television’s relationship to the everyday and its topological qualities (Lury, 2007: 373), which constitutes a reaction to Corner but also a clear resistance to the positions articulated by Cardwell, Geraghty and Jacobs.…”

“…In a response to Corner’s article, for example, Karen Lury asserts that: ‘The first challenge is, I think, to resist the concept of ‘value’ or ‘more awkwardly’ the championing of ‘good-ness’ as the primary ambition of television studies’ and that ‘terms like ‘value’ or ‘excellence’ and ‘quality’ seem to me ways of smuggling in taste hierarchies established via criteria related to other art forms.’ (Lury, 2007: 371–372). In rejecting a focus on value, Lury proceeds to argue for a greater appreciation of television’s relationship to the everyday and its topological qualities (Lury, 2007: 373), which constitutes a reaction to Corner but also a clear resistance to the positions articulated by Cardwell, Geraghty and Jacobs. On a similar theme, Matt Hills responds to Jacobs’ ‘Television Aesthetics: an Infantile Disorder’ within his article, ‘Television Aesthetics: A Pre-structuralist Danger?’ (Hills, 2011).…”

“…Admittedly, I have heard misgivings regarding the area of television aesthetics voiced more frequently in conversation but, reading the few written versions mentioned at the beginning of this article, I am struck by some of the assumptions and characterisations of television aesthetics scholars that circulate within them. Indeed, a caricature emerges of the television aesthetics scholar as unduly biased towards US drama (Piper, 2016: 182), contributing unwittingly to the creation of a dubious television canon (Hills, 2011: 110–112), or passing off personal taste as value judgements (Lury, 2007: 372), for instance. Perhaps this person genuinely exists, but I struggle to find the resemblance across work in television aesthetics.…”

Broadcast drama and the problem of television aesthetics: home, nation, universe

“…In turn, such observations raise further questions about the pedagogic responsibilities of scholars of a medium that has such enormous national reach, community potential, and (possibly unmet) responsibilities of social recognition. Good criticism should illuminate, certainly, but I think that, like Karen Lury, we should resist 'the championing of 'good-ness' as the primary ambition of television criticism' 86 and leave the sorting of the better from the best (or the worst) to the many fan-sites that appear to be dedicated to that very purpose. It may be objected that I am conflating popularity with value but it seems legitimate to question how it is that an American series such as Mad Men (the seventh and most recent series of which garnered a mere 0.2% audience share in the UK, 'a meagre' 28,500 viewers 87 ) can justify quite so much establishment interest from British academic critics, whilst the 'greatest drama hits' of Britain's most watched channels gather domestic audiences that are immense by comparison, and yet attract virtually none at all.…”