Introduction to the special issue Genre After Media

IF 2.4 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Television & New Media Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/15274764231171061
Lauren Berliner, J. Cohn
{"title":"Introduction to the special issue Genre After Media","authors":"Lauren Berliner, J. Cohn","doi":"10.1177/15274764231171061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A number of “thought-pieces” have recently come out proclaiming with glee that genre, as we know it, is dead; that it has been put out of its misery by algorithmic recommendations, search engines, and a rapidly transforming entertainment industry (de Pontent 2022; Battan 2019; Cooperman 2021; Leneghan 2020; Petrusich 2021). They present genre as the hard barriers that make entertainment boring and suggest that there is a utopian potential in breaking them down. In response, we collectively argue that genre is not only alive and well but is indeed one of the more thought-provoking aspects of contemporary media and media studies, and worthy of continued study. During a period when you can watch television in a theater, see theatrical performances on Zoom, screen a big-budget feature film on your phone, and play a game on Netflix, questions around the relationship between medium and genre have rarely if ever been more salient or more fascinating. Media specificity, the question of what makes one medium distinct from others and what they are uniquely adept at expressing, becomes significantly more complex when exhibitors appear agnostic about how exactly content is shown and experienced. While medium may be the dominant way in which humanities scholars tend to define their fields and objects of study, the essays collected here point to the continuing relevance of genre across both the entertainment industry and the academy. Indeed, the entertainment industry has increasingly turned to genre distinctions to help them to organize their collections and appeal to users. Netflix and most other streaming services go into extreme specifics in their genre categories but hardly focus at all on what medium their content might consist of (a movie?, TV?, or Video game?). And as medium becomes a less salient category, it begins to look more like genre with flexible definitions and squishy boundaries rather than exact specifications. For instance, what exactly is television anymore? And when we call something a film, are we referring to its medium, its genre, both, or neither? Genre clearly still matters to audiences and industries; generic trains and intertextual","PeriodicalId":51551,"journal":{"name":"Television & New Media","volume":"25 1","pages":"479 - 487"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Television & New Media","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764231171061","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A number of “thought-pieces” have recently come out proclaiming with glee that genre, as we know it, is dead; that it has been put out of its misery by algorithmic recommendations, search engines, and a rapidly transforming entertainment industry (de Pontent 2022; Battan 2019; Cooperman 2021; Leneghan 2020; Petrusich 2021). They present genre as the hard barriers that make entertainment boring and suggest that there is a utopian potential in breaking them down. In response, we collectively argue that genre is not only alive and well but is indeed one of the more thought-provoking aspects of contemporary media and media studies, and worthy of continued study. During a period when you can watch television in a theater, see theatrical performances on Zoom, screen a big-budget feature film on your phone, and play a game on Netflix, questions around the relationship between medium and genre have rarely if ever been more salient or more fascinating. Media specificity, the question of what makes one medium distinct from others and what they are uniquely adept at expressing, becomes significantly more complex when exhibitors appear agnostic about how exactly content is shown and experienced. While medium may be the dominant way in which humanities scholars tend to define their fields and objects of study, the essays collected here point to the continuing relevance of genre across both the entertainment industry and the academy. Indeed, the entertainment industry has increasingly turned to genre distinctions to help them to organize their collections and appeal to users. Netflix and most other streaming services go into extreme specifics in their genre categories but hardly focus at all on what medium their content might consist of (a movie?, TV?, or Video game?). And as medium becomes a less salient category, it begins to look more like genre with flexible definitions and squishy boundaries rather than exact specifications. For instance, what exactly is television anymore? And when we call something a film, are we referring to its medium, its genre, both, or neither? Genre clearly still matters to audiences and industries; generic trains and intertextual
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《后媒体时代》特刊简介
最近出现了许多“思想碎片”,兴高采烈地宣称,我们所熟知的文学体裁已经消亡;算法推荐、搜索引擎和快速转型的娱乐业(de Pontent 2022;Battan 2019;库珀曼2021;Leneghan 2020;Petrusich 2021)。他们认为类型是让娱乐变得无聊的硬障碍,并暗示打破这些障碍是一种乌托邦式的可能性。作为回应,我们共同认为,类型不仅存在,而且确实是当代媒体和媒体研究中更发人深省的方面之一,值得继续研究。当你可以在电影院看电视,在Zoom上观看戏剧表演,在手机上播放大制作电影,在Netflix上玩游戏时,围绕媒介和类型之间关系的问题从未如此突出或吸引人。媒体专一性,即是什么使一种媒体有别于其他媒体,以及它们独特的擅长表达什么,当参展商对内容的展示和体验方式表现得不确定时,这个问题就变得更加复杂了。虽然媒介可能是人文学者倾向于定义他们的领域和研究对象的主要方式,但这里收集的文章指出了在娱乐行业和学术界中类型的持续相关性。事实上,娱乐业越来越多地转向类型区分,以帮助他们组织自己的收藏和吸引用户。Netflix和大多数其他流媒体服务在类型分类上都非常具体,但几乎没有关注他们的内容可能由什么媒介组成(电影?、电视吗?还是电子游戏?)随着媒介成为一个不那么突出的类别,它开始看起来更像是具有灵活定义和模糊边界的类型,而不是精确的规范。比如,电视到底是什么?当我们称某样东西为电影时,我们指的是它的媒介,它的类型,两者都是,还是两者都不是?显然,题材对用户和行业来说仍然很重要;通用列车和互文列车
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Television & New Media explores the field of television studies, focusing on audience ethnography, public policy, political economy, cultural history, and textual analysis. Special topics covered include digitalization, active audiences, cable and satellite issues, pedagogy, interdisciplinary matters, and globalization, as well as race, gender, and class issues.
期刊最新文献
Ideology as/of Platform Affordance and Black Feminist Conceptualizations of “Canceling”: Reading Twitter Calling out Feminists: Antifeminist Hijacking of Cancel Culture in South Korea The Platformisation of Cancel Culture “Alex, DO NOT BACKPEDAL ON SANDY HOOK!”: Reactionary Fandom, Cancel Culture, and the Possibility of ‘Audience Capture’ on YouTube Cancel Culture and Trigger-Ready Fragmented Interest Groups: The Case of Depp Versus Amber Heard
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1