312
he is the
VlCtun
of delusory no–
tions about the inherent potential
of television. A recent article of
his ends:
. . . the chance now for television
to develop itself-rather than ex–
ploiting its predecessors-is doubly
critical, for
if it
succeeds
it
will
become a great
art-and save it–
self from starting another tread–
mill to oblivion.
The italics are mine and for a
purpose. Television is a medium
of communication and as such
only a possible channel (no pun
intended) for great
art;
it can no
more be "a great art" than the
cinema, although there are great
works in that medium. It is not
just a semantic quibble to insist
that there be no loose talk about
television as a great art of the fu–
ture. That is to delude ourselves
about two things: the nature of
the medium and the possible uses
and development of that nature.
A contrary mystique about tele–
vision has been generated largely
Indian Thought and
its Development
By ALBERT SCHWEITZER
"Reconciliation of
practical ethics and
mystical monism."
Journal of Philosophy
Paperback $1.60
WRITE FOR SPRING CATAL.OG
BEACON PRESS
BEACON HILl.. BOSTON
11
by intellectuals and film-makers
(two more or less mutually ex–
clusive classes) to the effect that
it is an instrument of the devil,
inherently evil and operatively cor–
rupting in its abuse of intelligence
and neglect of
art.
It
is an at–
tack very like that of some poets
a decade ago upon "Science" and
the "Atomic Age." Remembering
Hiroshima, they projected a dia–
bolism into a kind of knowledge,
rather than judging as good or
bad the uses to which it was put.
At the moment what is needed
for television is neither doomsay–
ing nor hosannahs of jubilation
about its chancey future shape.
What is needed, and desperately,
by people in the trade, by the
viewers, and
au fond
by the "cri–
tics" is a hard, realistic sense of
what the medium can do, what
its limits are, technically, socio–
logically, and aesthetically and
where it connects with rather than
usurps (as it is increasingly evi–
dent that it is not likely to) the
place of other media such as books,
newspapers, and motion pictures
for entertaining and informing
people. I have conscientiously not
used the term "art" to describe
these media and I shall as sternly
eschew it for television. And the
same for the criticism of television.
All significant criticism is
post hoc,
when it isn't post mortem. Criti–
cism cannot legislate, although it
sometimes tries to. It can only
observe and judge what already
