Art House Bias

Let me start out by saying that I believe Home Box Office (henceforth referred to as HBO) has made some of the most definitive and original television in the last thirty years. Shows like Sex and the City, Six Feet Under, and the Sopranos, cables most infamous and profitable show to date, are synonymous with great television, and in turn are synonymous with HBO.

One particular facet of HBO that I’m fond of is that it seems to have this way of fostering creativity. HBO doesn’t cancel stuff right away, instead they let programming evolve at it’s own pace till it is either a cultural phenomenon or an un-renewable disaster. I remember a few years ago when Big Love premiered and people considered it gimmicky at best. I can’t exactly blame them though, because polygamy for polygamies sake is very, very gimmicky. But four years later the show is being called one of the best of the decade and I think that credit should be given to HBO for allowing the show to expand on its own.

It is because of there desire to foster creativity that their shows have meticulously blossomed and made a name for the network. In short, HBO has an amazing crop of television and I have the utmost respect for the art that they have produced. But I have been noticing something about this station and the media in general, that worries me. My observation is this: the modern day art house that is television is becoming more and more biased. To further desecrate the matter, this bias is not so much in the shadows, its out for everyone to see.

When the Sopranos premiered in 1998 its tagline was ‘Family, Redefined’. This not only describes that particular show, it describes television in particular. It seems every other show HBO produces is trying, in one way or another, to redefine the family unit. Immeasurable amounts of critical praise are following this ‘redefinition’. Lately works of art have been receiving critical accolades for pushing boundaries, not necessarily for showcasing artistic merit.

As a creative person, I have a problem with something be critically acclaimed merely because it seeks to be amoral. Edgy is ok, but it is not the end-all by any means. Bottom line: Art should not be praised merely because of its message.

Whether it is a collection of monologues by Eve Ensler or a Broadway play by Tony Kushner, a piece of art should not be exalted because it seeks to undermine certain values. Yes, art usually has a pretty clear message, but sometimes that message can overpower the art to the point where the artistic value is lost and nothing remains but propaganda. Whether it is a religious or political message, all art can be overpowered by a particular message but unfortunately, it seems critics are reviewing the message more than the art.

Looking at the lineup of weekly programming, I can logically see a mass-media revolution taking place. Networks are actively working against traditional values one primetime block at a time, and while it may be just reflecting changes in our society, it may just as well be making those changes. If you’re trying to spark a revolution, just say so don’t masquerades as only reflecting a revolution.

As you can tell, my creative ego is worried that much of the critically-praised media feels much more like a political message, instead of just plain art. This worries me because lately, media with a specific political leaning have been garnering much applause. Mad Men is one example, while the writing it good, I sense that many people embrace it because it justifies our moral sins through historical re-writing. Obviously, it is just a story, but it’s also much more than that….it’s propaganda masquerading as art.