Behind and in
front of the screen: television’s invovlvement with family life by Barrie
Gunter and Michael Svennevig, John Libbey & company ltd, London, 1987
·
Pg51 ‘effects of tv… divided into 3 main categories:’
family life effecting children’s expectations, instructional to adults, impact
on family member’s interaction and closeness
·
‘current standard of living of family members [making
dissatisfied] through its frequent portrayal of families who have limitless
wealth and ultra glamorous lifestyles’
Gunter and
Svennevig (1987) the ideology built into the differential representation for wealthy families, who are usually unhappy, compared to poor families who are
usually seen as contented, ‘the significance of television families for the
audience and the lessons about family life which they present can only be
inferred
Open The box
by Jane Root, comedia in association with channel 4
·
Pg 34 ‘many people have a highly emotional involvement
with television’
·
‘television, the viewers says, is a moving experience’
·
John Ellis
in ‘Visible Fictions’ suggest that tv only requires ‘short bursts of attention’
·
Pg29 ‘struggling to concentrate through the filter of
family activities’
·
‘keeping the set switched on, without even trying to take
in anything on the screen’ ‘becomes a filter behind conversations and domestic
events’ ‘used like this…[tv is] a constant presence inhabiting the sitting
room’
Anna
McCarthy, Ambient Television: visual culture and public space, duke university
press, durham and London 2001
·
Pg1 ‘we leave the house-the store, the waiting room, the
bar, the train station, the airport… sites of commerce bureaucracy and
community, constituting the landscape of public life today’
·
‘tv enters the everyday built environment under numerous
guises’
·
‘point of purchase video’ in stores
·
‘we don’t always pay much attention to these various
forms of ambient television… they can teach us a great deal about the power
politics of spectatorship and commerce in contemporary public space’
·
‘the screen serves site specific purposes, its placement
and use carrying out local tasks and channelling larger socio-economic forces
into the environment’
Make Room for
TV: Television and the family ideal in postwar America by Lynn spigel, The
university of Chicago press, Chicago and London 1992
·
Pg1’its installation into the domestic space in the years
following WW2. During this period the primary site of exhibition for spectator
amusements was transferred from the public space of the movie theatre to the
private space of the home’
·
Pg 2 ‘the more general obsession with the reconstruction
of family life \AN DOMESTIC IDEALS… invested an enormous amount of cultural
capitalto form a family and live out a set of highly structures gender and generational
roles’
·
Pg 5‘women, however, are systematically marginalised in
tv history.According to the the assumptions of currenthistorical pardigms, the
woman is simply the receiver of the television text-the one to whom the
advertiser promotes products’
·
Sitcom as a hybrid productlegitimate and vaudeville
theatrical traditions
·
Bourgeouis sitting room as the site for the theatrical
construction of the family
Televison and
everyday life by Roger Silverstone, routledge, London, 1994
·
Pg 24 ‘providing in its schedules models and and
structures of domestic life, or at least certain versions of domestic life’
·
‘our intergration into a consumer culture through which our
domesticity is both constructed and displayed’ – constant consumption fo
television
·
‘an element in the private culture of the home; gendered,
aged, multiply dispersed in differently occupied spaces; differentially
connected to a second technology’
·
‘that domestic life, both in ideal and reality is…. A
cultural and historical phenomenom… the creation of a bourgeouis class newly
risen to commercial and cultural prominence in the early nineteenth century.
That class was able to create and display a private world, sepearte from the
world of affairs; a world in which personal pleasures and social preoccupations
could be sustained and protected, shielded from the attentions of the public.
·
Pg 25 The interior ‘is still a place where the illusions
of control… are fundamental, even in their absence’
·
‘our interiors are not just physical spaces. They are
social, economic, cultural and political spaces’
·
‘running through the dynamic of these complex shifts and
instabilities [of social relations of the family and change], informing them,
supporting them, reflecting them, reflecting on them and reassuring us about
them, is television’
·
‘domesticxity itself is problematic. Our domesticity is
the product of historically defined and constantly shifting relationship
between public and private spaces and cultures’
·
‘different dimensions of our domesticity as home, family
and household’
·
Pg 26 ‘seen as breaking down’
·
‘Home is a construct… It is the object of more or less
intense emotion. It is where we belong’
·
‘Attachment to place and being able to be placed are
crucial elements in contemporary life, the more so as we begin to recognise how
vulnerable and difficult our lives are becoming’
·
Pg 27 ‘places are human spaces, the focus of experience
and intention, memory and desire.’
·
‘Home is a relational concept’
Walter
Benjamin 1976 (1983)
·
‘The private citizen who in the office took reality into
account, requires of the interior that it should support him in his illusions…
from this sprang the phantasmagorias of the interior. This represented the
universe for the private citizen. In it he assembled the distant in space and
time. His drawing room was a box in the world theatre’
Anne
Buttimer(1980) home is intimately connected with ‘horizons of reach’ ‘the lived
reciprocity of movement and rest, territory and range, security and adventure,
housekeeping and husbandry, community building and social organistaion’
Giddens 1984
‘reach’ is now disengaged from physical movement, Harvey 1989 it is infinitely
extended through our involvement with the mass media
Doreen Massey,
1992 always ideological securities attached to the home
Barrett, 1980
ideological support of patriarchy embedded in the family
Heller 1984
‘’Going Home’ should mean: returning to that firm position which we know, to
which we are accustomed, where we feel safe, and where our emotional
relationships are at their most intense’
David Seamon
(1979) home as physical presence, familiarity, ritual, possession, control and
restoration
Judith and
Andrew Sixsmith 1990 –home divided into 3 experiential domains
