Philosophical evaluation of Reality TV

[Saurabh]

Hi all,

AR says that art is selective re-creation of reality.

In her book 'The Romantic Manifesto', she says that art should not show the non-essential aspects of reality (e.g. a rotten apple), but it should depict what is possible (e.g. a red ripe apple).

My question is, should an Objectivism follower like the concept of Reality TV or not?

More important question to me is not: whether Reality TV has a possibility of being bad. The question I am interested in is: if Reality TV as a concept has any possibiity of being good - from a philosophical standpoint.

I am also not concerned if Reality TV does not classify as art. Which is why I am looking for a philoophical appraisal - and not as esthetic one.

My own take is: Reality TV can be a philosophically good concept if implemented by a program that shows how, in reality, a good human being wins (e.g. on a sanitized version of a show like Big Brother). In other words, it becomes equivalent to a sport, based on some rules of game.

Plz let me know your reactions/thoughts. Thx!

Edited December 1, 2009 by Saurabh

[Jake_Ellison]

I can name two shows that qualify as reality shows, that I actually watched beyond just a quick glimpse (meaning that I enjoyed them):

One was called "Survivorman", with Les Stroud as a guy who was left alone in inhospitable places for a week at a time, with minimal tools and no food or shelter, and did his best to simulate extreme survival situations, in which he used his knowledge, perseverence and ingenuity to brave the elements and shoot an hour worth of good TV at the same time. (he filmed himself, there was no camera crew, like the other more succesful show with a similar theme)

The other one is still running, it's called Ice Road Truckers. Pretty much the same thing applies, but on top of it I also like the filmmaking. (which consists of selecting the right footage and clever editing)

I am also not concerned if Reality TV does not classify as art. Which is why I am looking for a philoophical appraisal - and not as esthetic one.

In the case of reality TV, the only thing you can judge philosophically is the Philosophy of the actual people involved. (because they are by definition real people, doing what they want--unless it's a fake reality show, i.e. they script it, in which case it's not a reality show.)

In the case of the shows I mentioned, the shows are not at all scripted, and there is enough good in most of the people involved that I like them. While that is absolutely a requirement for me (I probably wouldn't stick with Ice Road Truckers if it featured awful people), the Aesthetics is the decisive factor in it: I definitely wouldn't watch Les Stroud or some truck drivers discuss philosophical issues (or anything else) around a table in a studio.

[CWEarl]

Hi all,

AR says that art is selective re-creation of reality.

In her book 'The Romantic Manifesto', she says that art should not show the non-essential aspects of reality (e.g. a rotten apple), but it should depict what is possible (e.g. a red ripe apple).

My question is, should an Objectivism follower like the concept of Reality TV or not?

Frankly, I find questions like this somewhat troubling. While Objectivism provides a philosophical framework for man's relationship with reality, it's not a belief system dictating what its followers ought to like or dislike.

I do guess that Ayn Rand would dislike a great many reality TV shows whose subject is the degradation of human beings (Shot at Love, Flavor of Love, etc.). But she would probably like the ones that celebrate human achievement like The Amazing Race.

More important question to me is not: whether Reality TV has a possibility of being bad. The question I am interested in is: if Reality TV as a concept has any possibiity of being good - from a philosophical standpoint.

I'm not sure how to make such an evaluation.

I am also not concerned if Reality TV does not classify as art. Which is why I am looking for a philoophical appraisal - and not as esthetic one.

My own take is: Reality TV can be a philosophically good concept if implemented by a program that shows how, in reality, a good human being wins (e.g. on a sanitized version of a show like Big Brother). In other words, it becomes equivalent to a sport, based on some rules of game.

Plz let me know your reactions/thoughts. Thx!

I think Big Brother is awful. I'm not interested in what happens when a bunch of trashy people are forced to live together.

[Saurabh]

Jake and CWEarl,

Thanks for your remarks. There are two takeaways for me:

1) Some reality shows can be proper philosophically - if they are not scripted, and if they show a contest where the rules of the game are defined.

2) Aesthetics is also a consideration, if one views these shows as art

Frankly, I find questions like this somewhat troubling. While Objectivism provides a philosophical framework for man's relationship with reality, it's not a belief system dictating what its followers ought to like or dislike.

CWEarl,

I would agree with you, if I would just be asking for what Objectivism believes in. Actually, my query is what Objectivism believes in and why. Though, I agree, I did not state the why in my OP.

But, as I understand now, the reason for 1 (above) to be true is that such reality shows are actually equivalent to a sport.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Saurabh

[Bob G]

I do guess that Ayn Rand would dislike a great many reality TV shows whose subject is the degradation of human beings (Shot at Love, Flavor of Love, etc.). But she would probably like the ones that celebrate human achievement like The Amazing Race.

It is always dangerous to guess what Ayn Rand would like. She once said that she liked "Charlie's Angels" because no one was going to take the show seriously, they could do what they liked, and AR thought it was enjoyable.

I also remember AR asking people not to send her music because no one knew what her tastes were.

But even more important, AR's tastes have no direct philosophical or moral meaning. She wrote about the philosophical issues in aesthetics, but the consequences of those views provide for a wide range of personal preference. "Understanding Objectivism" by Dr. Peikoff is an excellent source.

[CWEarl]

I would agree with you, if I would just be asking for what Objectivism believes in. Actually, my query is what Objectivism believes in and why. Though, I agree, I did not state the why in my OP.

Objectivism doesn't believe anything. People have beliefs.

But, as I understand now, the reason for 1 (above) to be true is that such reality shows are actually equivalent to a sport.

Put simply, a race to the top is worthy of admiration, while a race to the bottom is not. A good reality show celebrates accomplishment, while a bad one celebrates mediocrity.

[Eiuol]

I am also not concerned if Reality TV does not classify as art. Which is why I am looking for a philoophical appraisal - and not as esthetic one.

Then I think the genre of television wouldn't even matter. You can't make one sweeping judgment of all works within a genre. There's a difference between shows like "The Amazing Race", "Tool Academy", "I Love New York", or "Survivorman". But they're similar enough to be classified as "reality TV". You can only appraise an individual work, not a genre.

[CWEarl]

It is always dangerous to guess what Ayn Rand would like.

Dangerous? My guess was based on her stated requirements for what she considered romantic art. As there was no such thing as Amazing Race during her lifetime, I extrapolated.

She once said that she liked "Charlie's Angels" because no one was going to take the show seriously, they could do what they liked, and AR thought it was enjoyable.

I also remember AR asking people not to send her music because no one knew what her tastes were.

But even more important, AR's tastes have no direct philosophical or moral meaning. She wrote about the philosophical issues in aesthetics, but the consequences of those views provide for a wide range of personal preference. "Understanding Objectivism" by Dr. Peikoff is an excellent source.

And I made no attempt at a philosophical statement. I just guessed.

[Grames]

I agree, sports were the original reality entertainments.

[Jonathan13]

Put simply, a race to the top is worthy of admiration, while a race to the bottom is not. A good reality show celebrates accomplishment, while a bad one celebrates mediocrity.

There are many reasons other than "celebrating" accomplishment or mediocrity that people can have for creating or enjoying watching "reality" shows. For example, it can be quite fascinating to see how people behave when placed in situations which involve pressure, fame, conflict, the need to solve problems, etc., or it can be interesting and informative to see how people handle the fact that the talentless often try to take control or intimidate others as a means of distracting them from recognizing their lack of value. I haven't seen a lot of reality shows, but the segments I've watched here and there have been sort of a microcosm that reflects the larger world. It's interesting to see how some people are easily fooled or manipulated, how arrogance is often valued because it's mistaken for confidence, and how extroverted lunacy is sometimes rewarded while introverted rationality is ignored or shunned.

J

[Jake_Ellison]

...the segments I've watched here and there have been sort of a microcosm that reflects the larger world.It's interesting to see how some people are easily fooled or manipulated, how arrogance is often valued because it's mistaken for confidence, and how extroverted lunacy is sometimes rewarded while introverted rationality is ignored or shunned.

You're not really an observer of that microcosm, when you're watching a reality show, you're in fact a participant and the driving force for those decisions. (especially the decision to shun introverted rationality in favor of a spectacle)

The setup defeats the purpose, if your purpose was to learn about real reality, which doesn't have an audience to entertain.

It's like watching a nature documentary shot in a circus or a zoo, to learn about lions and zebras. Sure, you're watching animals doing things, but you're not really learning anything about their true nature.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Jake_Ellison