> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://framboisearchives.net/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# On the Art of Television
- URL: https://framboisearchives.net/on-the-art-of-television/
- Published: 2026-08-12T18:28:50.000Z
- Updated: 2026-08-19T23:56:14.000Z
- Author: M. R. Framboise
- Tags: Articles

### Originally Published in The Starshine Essays; Aug. 9, 2026

## I. Introduction

Much has been made of the potential for political and revolutionary  
significance held by various forms of artistic expression. However, I  
fear that there is a notable absence of revolutionary perspective given  
towards the specific medium of television.\[1\] This is not a negation of  
the political significance of television in general; the dominant  
bourgeois society has made firm usage of the medium in the propagation  
of their ideas. There are countless hours of the medium dedicated to  
bourgeois perceptions of society, and still countless hours of the  
medium that could be considered--- in some vein--- progressive. However,  
as with all things, we must approach television in a systematic and  
meaningful fashion.

There are many points that may be considered in deriving a correct  
understanding of how we revolutionaries should approach the medium of  
television and how we should conduct our own activities with respect to  
the creation of television. The core points that we are concerned with  
here are (1) the core "seed," "theme," or "message" of a given programme  
and the class stamp of that theme; (2) the necessity of creativity\[2\]  
in the art of television, and (3) the mass character of television as a  
means of propagating revolutionary ideas. Now, we must say here that the  
simple propagation of progressive ideals is certainly not a replacement  
for engaging with the masses through struggle. It is but another tool in  
the tool-chest of the revolutionary and the people's revolutionary Party.

We must certainly not abandon the tasks of winning the masses through  
struggle. This is incontestable! But we must thoroughly utilize all  
tools available to us including through the arts in general and the art  
of television in particular. With all of this being said, let us  
carefully examine the art of television and advance the cause of  
bringing about a strong, harmonious, and unified style for the most  
beautiful medium of artistic expression

## II. A Character Across Time

The most notable distinguishing feature of the television arts from a  
standard motion-picture is a quantitative one. It is simply a matter of  
runtime. The average cinematic work runs in the neighborhood of two  
hours or so; whereas, even a single season of television can contain  
between eight and sixteen hours of combined runtime. Furthermore, this  
runtime is split across a number of episodes that themselves must be  
both self-contained and simultaneously further the series' ultimate  
narrative.

This may seem obvious, but in this rough sketch of the distinctions  
between television and film, we can already see crucial principles of  
dialectics at play. All quantity contains quality, and in the  
quantitative increase in runtime, there exists a qualitative distinction  
between two hours of film and eight-to-sixteen hours of television. The  
nature of the thing fundamentally changes and a qualitatively new form  
of artistic expression is created. This new thing, the medium of  
television, contains elements of the motion picture that preceded, but  
still emerges as a fundamentally different medium--- or a different  
**stage** of medium--- that is governed by a different stage of  
principles.

The second dialectical principle that must be noted with respect to  
television is the relationship between the general and the particular.  
Mao says in **On Contradiction** that, "These are the two processes of  
cognition: one, from the particular to the general, and the other, from  
the general to the particular. Thus cognition always moves in cycles."  
Television, as a mode of creative expression and thus the  
materialization of cognition, also moves through these cycles. Each  
episode moves from the particular to the general--- from the specific  
narrative of a given episode to the wider narrative of the series--- and  
from the general to the particular. Moving from the general to the  
particular in the sense of returning the wider narrative back to the  
specific episode and showcasing--- in the best of circumstances--- how  
the movements of the wider narrative affect the particular situations of  
an episode

These dialectical principles are of paramount importance when crafting a  
unified body of thought surrounding the medium of television. And with  
these principles firmly established, we must make note of a more  
particular structure of television--- or any literary-creative work for  
that matter. In his landmark treatise, **On the Art of Cinema**, the  
great Comrade, Kim Jong Il said, "If a writer is to produce a good piece  
of work, he must first select the right seed, which is the core of a  
literary work."\[3\] This **seed**, is effectively the theme or "core  
idea" of that is meant to be propagated **en masse** through the work.  
And just as television itself is a qualitatively different medium from  
cinema, the **seed** of a work of television must be qualitatively  
different from that of a work of cinema. More specifically, the seed of  
a work of television must hold the productive tension of simultaneously  
being general enough to be rigorously applied throughout each episode,  
and particular enough so as to distinguish the series from others--- it  
must be novel.

The question remains, however, of the place from which these seeds  
originate. The idealist would posit that they originate from a  
pre-social knowledge of a singular artist. This would be incorrect for  
reasons that we (and others) have articulated at length, so we shan't  
dwell on it here. The dogmatist would answer similarly that these  
artistic seeds are (or at least **should be**) developed only through  
the most rigorous and highest levels of ideology. This is also incorrect  
and fails to apply analysis of any artist's conditions onto his work.  
The ultimate source of these seeds is found in the ultimate source of  
cognition itself. In man's conditions and direct lived experiences. As  
the great Comrade, Kim Jong Il, noted himself:

**"If a writer is to create a fine work, he must first gather valuable** 
**material about life. This material serves as the life-giving soil which** 
**nurtures the seed as it grows and matures into an artistic image."**\[4\]

There is also a basis for this in the great, Comrade Mao Zedong's **On** 
**Practice**:

"**If you want to know the structure and properties of the atom, you** 
**must make physical and chemical experiments to change the state of the** 
**atom.** \[...\] **All genuine knowledge originates in direct** 
**experience.**"\[5\]

If we are to take it--- as we should--- that artistic expression is a  
physical-material manifestation of cognition, then it certainly must  
follow that the genuine knowledge that precedes the work itself must  
follow the same principle. It must certainly follow that the ideas  
propagated in the creative work must originate in genuine experience of  
the matter. It must also follow that for the creation of good  
television, one must also participate in the act of experiencing life,  
for if he is to accurately and genuinely represent such matters on  
screen, then he must have a multi-ordered knowledge of the subject.

We stated previously that a television programme is a qualitatively new  
thing with respect to the preceding medium of cinema. It is with this in  
mind, that we must tailor our definition of the **seed** to fit the new  
medium. We have accurately described the seed in its general aspect for  
literary-artistic work, and now must describe it accurately for the  
particular aspect of the television programme. We had briefly approached  
this topic, but let us elucidate it more clearly.

In the medium of television, an artist has a greater time-span with  
which to develop the core of the seed. This also means that the seed may  
be more complex or flexible with respect to those of cinematic works.  
While the seed itself will remain mostly constant in its general aspect  
(over the series), it may also ebb and flow like the tides in its  
particular aspect (between episodes or story-arcs). Taken in the  
broadest possible sense, the seed of a particular programme manifests as  
how the central character(s) manifests their creativity. It centrally  
answers the question of how these characters act within their capacity  
as social being to transform the world and themselves. How they choose  
to do so--- and the portrayal of the success or failure of these  
efforts--- is the seed of a programme in its purest form.

The challenge in crafting a good programme is in the obeying of the most  
immortal artistic maxim:--- **show, don't tell**. Regardless of the  
superficial message of any given televisual work--- what the show  
**tells**\--- they key to crafting a good and correct programme is found  
in the manner by which the core characters transform the world and  
themselves throughout the series. Television uniquely provides an extend  
period of time with which the audience may sit with a character and  
watch them enact their creativity. We will return to this concept  
throughout our meditation on televisual art, so it must be kept in mind  
that the ultimate goal is to produce a theory of television that  
outlines how the medium may be utilized in the promotion of progressive  
acts of creativity.

## III. The Art of Writing & The Mass Line

Television, like all artistic works, is frequently and erroneously  
viewed as the work of a singular great genius. We find this to be an  
incorrect view, for no television series can be produced--- nay! No  
television series could even be written--- without the labor of numerous  
individuals. It could be said in this sense and with the knowledge that  
the life experience of the writer(s) provides the basis of the seed that  
the narratives of a given programme are the particular experiences of  
the writers' lives, generalized into an overall narrative structure, and  
return to the particular through their translation into a specific  
narrative--- both on the level of the programme itself and of an  
individual episode.

It could be said that the writers' room is (or **should be**) the mass  
line operating on a miniature scale. The experiences of the writers and  
wider society are generalized into narrative themes that make up the  
general aspect of the programme's **seed**. They are synthesized into to  
the core message and returned to the particular premise of the  
programme.

It is with this in mind that we must make note of the class standing of  
any given work of televisual art. The great Comrade, Mao Zedong, has  
said that "every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with  
the brand of a class." Given that we have noted that televisual art is a  
materialization of cognition--- a "kind of thinking" in a sense--- it  
follows that television programmes will take on the ideological  
orientation and class-standing of those who produce them and the society  
in which they live.

In the development of a popularly oriented programme, exceptional care  
must be taken to orient it towards a working-class stand. This is,  
however, much easier to simple state than to demonstrate. The question  
remains of what a **working-class oriented** television programme looks  
like materially.

The first answer to this question lay in the fact that, just as in  
political organizing, the class stand cannot be achieved from a simple  
voyeuristic observation of the class from the perspective of another  
class. A working-class oriented programme must originate in the genuine  
experiences of the working-class. The writers' room must fully,  
consciously, and with the most steadfast resolve, oriented itself  
towards and immerse itself in the working-class if it is to achieve  
working-class oriented artwork. At the on-the-ground level, this means  
that the writers' room cannot be divorced from the class by virtue of  
their own technical standing but must surround itself with the general  
life and activities of the working-class. They must dine at the  
restaurants, experience the neighborhoods, and understand the interests  
of the working-class to such a degree that they become indistinguishable  
from their own interests.

The second answer to this question lay in the ideological character of a  
good programme and in the consciousness of this ideological character.  
The writers' room must be conscious of the ideology that they are tasked  
with broadcasting on screen. Just as in political organizing, the  
merging of correct theory and correct practice is paramount in the  
creation of a strong programme. We cannot aimlessly stumble our way into  
correct ideas, we must firmly synthesize these ideas from the  
working-class standing outlined above and fuse them with the science of  
materialist dialectics to produce the ideological content of a  
programme.

The third answer to this question involves the structure of the writers'  
room itself--- an important domain where ideological struggle and  
collaboration are held in a productive tension. In the production and  
development of a television programme, there must be a firm struggle  
against petit-bourgeois ideals and other such backwardness; however,  
there must also be a great collaboration between all of the writers. In  
the best case, there is unity on the general aspect of the programme,  
struggle on its particulars, that is then returned to unity in action.  
While we will not approach liberal notions that there are "no bad  
ideas," each writer does bring a unique experience that may contribute  
progressive elements to a programme. Ultimately however, unity must  
prevail, and democratic decisions should be carried out to the fullest  
extent of one's capacities just as they would be in the Party.

Overall, the writers' room, while different in numerous ways, still  
functions similarly to a mass organization in a way. The medium of  
television presents a broad range of opportunities to propagate ideas to  
the great masses of the people, and as such it is of paramount  
importance that revolutionary television writers make a concentrated  
effort to understand and act upon the principles of television as a  
simultaneous mode of propaganda, outlet of artistic and creative  
expression, and collaborative cycle of unity and struggle the product of  
which is the programme itself. Like society, we cannot seek to change  
methods in the production of televisual work if we do not firmly  
understand them and apply revolutionary principles to their domain.

## IV. The Depiction of Ordinary & Working Life

There is a most beautiful and often underappreciated aspect of the  
televisual arts that is of paramount importance to the reorientation of  
the medium towards a proletarian stand. It is the depiction and  
exaltation most high of the ordinary and working lives of the great  
masses of the people. Labor, life, and the everyday construction of  
society from the interpersonal through the broad political spheres  
should be a point of pride for the working-class and as such is greatly  
deserving of depiction on screen. Under the dominant bourgeois society,  
there are several erroneous views that are frequently pursued through  
all medium--- including the televisual medium. Let us combat these and  
then let us firmly articulate the position that television depicting the  
lives, experiences, and struggles of the working class should represent.

Firstly, there is the miserabilist view that poverty--- or any  
working-class standing at all--- such a catastrophic misery in and of  
itself that other classes (or strata of class) may comfortably revel in  
gratitude that they are not in such positions. There are a few points of  
incorrectness here. The primary error is a metaphysical one that we, as  
a society, and that the working-class are not interconnected and  
interdependent human beings. It is paramount to denying man's character  
as a social being itself. The **seed** propagated by these programs is  
that we are essentially disparate creatures only loosely interacting  
with each other rather than interconnected masses. It is individualism  
and backwardness of the highest form and must be combatted if we are to  
have good, correct, and revolutionary television.

Secondly there is an error of glamorizing or aspirationalizing certain  
struggles or the presentation of a "perfect" life from within struggle.  
This, too, is erroneous because it (in certain circumstances) can lead  
to an excess of escapism and pacification among the masses. While a  
certain degree of escapism can be normal, healthy, or even necessary so  
as to avoid "burn-out" or depression, we cannot fall into a mode of  
exclusive or nigh-exclusive reliance on escapism. In art, just as in  
life, the only method moving through and overcoming hardship is through  
struggle. As the great Comrade Mao Zedong said, revolution is not a  
dinner-party nor are even the everyday struggles of working-class life.

The accurate depiction of struggle serves multiple purposes in the realm  
of revolutionary television. It characterizes struggle as not simply  
empty hardship, but the engine of change itself. And when these  
struggles are depicted through multiple lenses, through the viewpoints  
of multiple characters, we can characterize all struggles, from the  
revolutionary to the personal, as social processes through which change  
emerges. And when one contradiction is rectified in a given story arch,  
more emerge as the general aspect of the narrative takes precedence.  
Such is the old principle that "one divides into two."

So having correctly identified two erroneous trends in televisual arts,  
we must articulate the correct path for the medium. Put simply, this  
path is the natural result of the "mass-line writers' room" that we have  
previously identified. However fantastical the premises of a given  
programme, the **seed** of the work must synthesize the general  
experiences of life--- not the miserabilist voyeurism nor aspirational  
glamorization but a material depiction of life that contains both the  
finite and the infinite in productive tension with one another.

Programmes can have fantastical premises. This is natural, and human  
minds will wander, but the **seed** of good television is and must be  
grounded in the experiences, struggles, and lives of the working class.  
They must be taken from their particular situations, synthesized  
generally into the seed of a programme, and then returned to the  
particular domain of a given narrative. Ultimately, we cannot portray  
the working-class from outside the class and we cannot pretend as if  
there are no struggles to be found within the class. We must accurately  
demonstrate that within all domains there is struggle, but also that  
struggle creates synthesis. We must demonstrate that it is this process  
that all that has created everything that has ever been made.

## V. Television as a Revolutionary Instrument

It goes without saying that there is no medium which alone is able to  
make revolution; however, it is equally true that media and artists  
themselves do, in fact, contain great revolutionary significance when  
combined with more material forms of struggle. In the appendix to  
**"Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder**, Lenin stresses that  
"\[Revolutionaries\] must learn how to master every sphere of work and  
activity without exception." It is incontestable that the televisual  
arts are such a sphere. While not the prinicipal mode of struggle, the  
arts and sciences--- the manifestations of man's creativity--- are  
unquestionably one such sphere that we must come to master. It is in  
this sense that we may say that television has the capacity to become a  
revolutionary instrument. If the **seed** of a televisual work is the  
actions and creative capacities of the characters taken in their general  
aspect, and it is our goal as revolutionaries to master "all spheres,"  
then it naturally follows that we must master the creation of programmes  
the seeds of which would take an undeniable proletarian stand.

The question, however, still remains of what exactly such a programme  
would look like, and how it could be used to influence the broad masses  
of the people and bring them to the great cause of socialism. Overall,  
revolutionary television has three central purposes. Firstly, it must---  
in its seed--- propagate core revolutionary principles and showcase them  
through continuous struggle. Secondly, it must present the glory,  
beauty, and universality of labor. And thirdly, it must demonstrate the  
engine of change: the great masses of the people and their struggle for  
independence--- for the ability to forge a better life and to shape  
their destiny. Television alone cnanot bring people intro struggle, but  
it **can** provide fertile ground for revolutionaries to advance them  
through continuous struggle and action. It is better to recruit someone  
who as already been "opened-up" to progressive ideas; is it not?

Let us address the first matter--- that of a progrssive seed. We said  
that a truly revolutionary programme must, at its most core and basest  
level, propagate our core revolutionary principles. This means not that  
they will be simply spoken past the viewer as another detail that they  
may brush aside; it means that our theories and practical tactics for  
transforming the world must be so thoroughly ingrained in the programme  
that it would be rendered incomprehensible without them. Even when  
flawed, characters should demonstrate a correct and accurate progression  
as demonstrated by the laws of materialist history. Of course, the laws  
and concepts of materialist dialectics must be properly applied for the  
particular narrative and time-scales of the programme, but they must  
still be applied. Furthermore, the prinicples and partical matters of  
transforming the world must be deomnstrated through the characters'  
actions rather than their speech and mere "beliefs" alne. Taken  
generally, a good programme should take great care to demonstrate htat  
in all shapes, across all time-scales, the work of building revolution  
and transforming the world, oneself, one's community, or any other  
domain are analogous applications of the same fundamental laws of  
development.

The second point with regards to the purpose of revolutionary television  
has been previously discussed, but it is worth briefly revisiting here.  
It is of paramount importance that the televisual arts--- and indeed all  
arts--- demonstrate the beauty, universality, and  
revolutionary-transformative potential of labor. We must firmly  
demonstrate through both what we depict and how we depict it that labor  
and proletarianism are not things to be hidden, neglected, or ashamed  
of. It is something to carry with great pride, for it si through labor  
that everything that humankind has made of this world is able to be  
constructed. And moreover, there is more to the concept of "labor"  
than simple "work" or production for a wage. The very concept of  
defining oneself is a laborious process. The process of  
**self-actualization** is a laborious process. And if we may be  
meta-referrential, artistic construction--- of television or anything  
else--- is a laborious process. If we are to genuinely represent life,  
then it would be a great error to neglect the depiction of labor.

A revolutionary depiction of labor need not rely on setting alone,  
however. In actuality, it means that we must depict every process, on  
every level from the personal to the worldly, through the lens of the  
laborious construction of something new. "Randomness" and "fate"  
need not be present in revolutionary programming--- except to be  
combatted. It must be firmly shown through every available avenue that  
all that has been constructed has done so through labor.

This leads us quite well into the third point. We must demonstrate that  
contradictions and the relations between people--- that man's collective  
desire for independence is the engine by which the world changes. I  
would posit that many prorgrammes make the error of **Act of God**\-ism.  
While understandable given that we haven't endless screentime for  
exposition, it is possible to breach into the realm of the erroneous  
nonetheless. **Act of God**\-ism would posit that sometimes things happen  
without rhyme, reason, law, nor history to explain them. If we truly  
seek to create revolutionary television, we surely cannot be  
broadcasting the notion that there is any sphere that is not subject to  
change, nor could we broadcast the notion that conflict simply appears  
out of thin air. At every narrative level, it must be demonstrated that  
conflict brews over time as a result of the socio-historical conditions  
present within a given context. It must also be demonstrated that just  
as conflict does not fall from the heavens, neither do solutions. The  
**deus ex machina** trope is the paragon of **Act of God**\-ism. The  
solutions to conflict should not simply "appear" or magically dawn on  
the characters through epiphany. They must be struggled for and derived  
through the struggles and experience through which each character has  
gone. In showing that each character achieves victory through practice,  
it is shown--- piece by piece and episode by episode--- that not only do  
the characters of a given programme posses the ability to change their  
circumstances through disciplined struggle, but so does the viewer.  
Overall, it must be clearly communicated that there is no apex that the  
great masses of the people cannot reach. And we communicate this by  
crafting narratives that show our characters doing exactly that.

With the weaving together of these ideas, it becomes possible for us to,  
as Lenin said, **master** the sphere of the televisual arts. Taken  
generally, the crafting of revolutionary television must demonstrate to  
its viewers that there is a method to the madness of common life, that  
nothing happens in a vacuum, and that everyday ordinary people, when  
united, can fundamentally alter the course of their own lives and the  
world at large. It must be shown--- even on a miniscule scale--- that  
problems are solvable, that people **can** solve them, and that every  
level of labor is not only worthy of on-screen depiction, but  
fundamental in all human activities.

## VI. Final Thoughts & Conclusions

Having established a few core tenants of television as a revolutionary  
medium, we must return our discussion to the general aspect. And it is  
worth noting that these principles of a revolutionary television are not  
discrete mechanical steps. They are interlocking features of a medium  
that could prove incredibly beneficial to revolutionaries seeking to  
engage the broad masses of the people. Put simply, a programme cannot  
have a truly progressive seed if it's production consists entirely of  
bourgeois relations. A seed that truly demonstrates the creative and  
transformative potential of the working masses must originate from the  
working masses themselves. A **mass-line** writers' room is a  
prerequisite for the construction of revolutionary-progressive  
television. Before a single line of dialogue is spoken, before a single  
letter is printed on a page, the writers must first experience man's  
creative capacity for themselves. It is through the practice of  
transforming the world that the seed of the programme will come forth,  
and once the seed has been crystallized, the narrative will swiftly  
follow.

It is through this process that the programme will attain its  
class-standing and mass character. So with this, the question still  
remains: "**What do we when we refer to a 'strong, harmonious, and** 
**unified style' of television?**" We certainly do not mean that all  
programmes should be the same or dogmatically preach our ideas past the  
viewers. A strong, harmonious, and unified style--- in our telling---  
refers to a programme that demonstrate the transformative capacities of  
mankind, regardless of the specific narrative. We refer to a style that  
demonstrates the beauty and universality of ordinary working-life  
through the actions and practices of our characters. And above all, we  
refer to a programme that can communicate--- on whatever scale--- that  
the working masses of the people are the engine of history. This unified  
style is that which may, even for a brief moment, "touch" the viewer  
and slowly, quantitatively open them up to the idea that they, too can  
change the world.

Now with all of this being said, it would be rather foolish to proclaim  
that television, or any artistic work, alone could bring about  
transformative change in the world. The world is not changed through the  
passive consumption of art; it is changed through an active and  
laborious struggle by the great masses of the people. Television is not  
a "solution" to the problems and tasks of contemporary society so much  
as it is another tool in our toolchest--- another "sphere" which we  
must master. Any genuinely progressive television would be wasted if it  
were not utilized in conjunction with active mass-based political  
struggle. We cannot outright dismiss secondary tools, but we must use  
them to **augment** political work rather than outright replacing it.

As a concluding note, it would be a grave error to neglect the personal  
element present in our meditation on the televisual arts. Put simply,  
television has long been my personal favorite medium of artistic  
expression. It is truly my love for this medium that prompted an  
extended meditation on its constrcution. I genuinely believe that even  
beyond its potential for revolutionary agitation, television as a medium  
presents an opportunity to connect with and relate to fictional  
characters and narratives that is hitherto unparalleled. It is for that  
reason that such narratives and characters accurately represent not only  
the people by whom they were created, but the people who will watch them  
as well. As always, our practice must be guided "**from the masses, to** 
**the masses**," and when the task of constructing revolutionary  
television comes along, the masses will no longer be a passive subject,  
they will broadcast as the rightful agents of history.  
:::

---

1. Note: When we refer to "television," we are referring to  
episodic, serialized, motion-pictures irrespective of whether or not  
it is broadcast through traditional, cable, digital streaming, the  
internet, or any other means. We are referring to fiction here. ↩︎
2. In both the artistic and Juche-inflected sense of the world ↩︎
3. Kim Jong Il. On the Art of the Cinema. Pyongyang: Foreign  
Languages Publishing House, 1973\. Accessed July 18, 2026\. ↩︎
4. Kim Jong Il. On the Art of the Cinema. Pyongyang: Foreign  
Languages Publishing House, 1973\. Accessed July 18, 2026\. ↩︎
5. Mao Zedong. On Practice from Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 1937.  
Accessed July 18, 2026\. Marxists Internet Archive. ↩︎