SCREEN-L Archives

August 2007, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Stephen Groening <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:38:43 -0500
text/plain (32 lines)
(apologies for cross-posting)

Oft described has ³being there as it happens² and considered to be the
aesthetic mode of television, liveness has been advanced as that which
distinguishes television from film. For technological reasons, early
television broadcasts were live, and much of television program demonstrates
this pedigree. Thus liveness seems essential to genres such as the sitcom,
broadcast news, talk shows, sports telecasts and, more recently, the
³reality² show. Nevertheless, scholarship on liveness has generally
emphasized the catastrophe and the disaster, in which the extraordinary
quality of the event is leveraged so that temporal immediacy can more easily
overcome spatial distance.
This panel seeks papers addressing the question of liveness today. In light
of recent digital technologies (e.g. DVRs) and new media (such as YouTube),
is liveness still relevant to television¹s viewers, programmers, and/or
technological apparatus? What is the status of liveness in television
studies? Have film and television converged so that liveness is no longer a
mark of distinction? Case studies on particular events, programs, genres,
and/or technologies are welcome, as are theoretical discussion of liveness
and its epistemological, ontological and ideological implications.

Deadline August 15.

Send proposals to Stephen Groening ([log in to unmask]).

For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: