The question at hand is whether or not an article on Cole Turner, a character in the television show Charmed, is of encyclopedic material.
Art is clearly worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. Film as well as New Media Art, including digital video projections of what is essentially a short film, falls under the category of art. The question is really whether or not Television is art, specifically this television show. Like pornography, one can easily differentiate between art and what is clearly not an attempt at the quest for truth. Defining art has always been something of a difficulty. What I would say, in an attempt to prove that Charmed is worthy of scholarly attention, although certainly a specific scholar who was researching something titled Pop Culture and Mythology, or Reinterpretations of Fairytales and Lore in Media would find such an article particularly beneficial, is that Charmed makes a worthy attempt at reinterpreting such folktale icons as witches and demons, as well as a good host of mythological creatures, including nymphs, succubae, and banshees, for a modern audience. This encourages the audience to further pursue research on such topics, while thinking about the pycology of these creatures, and questioning the issues of good and evil that humanity encompasses. The medium of television should not limit the scholarly value of the writers, directors, and actors involved with the show. Their artistic vision and understanding of what truly reaches people, specifically the group of people that they feel most strongly need influence, should be valued. The character of Cole Turner deals with conflicts vital to the human experience, specifically light and darkness, as well as the choice between what is right and what will make me feel good right now. These questions and choices are highly relevant to American culture, most so to the target audience of teenagers and twenty-somethings who are in the process of examining morality and their own understanding of themselves.
|
