Ever since Buffy and The Sopranos, it seems like television has come to be more and more aesthetically dominated by this type of show that critics gush over but the general public ignores. We now appear to have reached some kind of turning point in that paradigm with Girls, a show that gets monster-sized attention from entertainment media and pundits but gets fairly shitty ratings EVEN BY CABLE TV STANDARDS. But it's on HBO and the chattering classes love it, so Lena Dunham winds up on the cover of Rolling Stone for making a show that gets fewer viewers than random episodes of Law and Order than have been rerun so many times you can practically recite the dialog from memory.

How much further can this process go? Will the next "It" show be something you can only view by re-hooking your TV to a UHF antenna and holding it with a roll of aluminum foil in your other hand?

Mike

I haven't watched the show, but I've seen Dunham and Allison Williams on the late night talk shows. The only things I could piece together from that and a quick Google search is that the fat girl gets naked every episode and the hot girl refuses to get naked ever.

I disagree that television is more aesthetically dominated by critically acclaimed but poorly rated shows. I think television is more aesthetically dominated (if I'm understanding what you mean by that) by trashy (or at least dumb) shows that get huge ratings.

It's nothing new. Critically acclaimed novels/films/TV shows/record albums/Broadway shows rarely get the sales they deserve. Sometimes there is overlap, but usually not. It was true in (say) 1920 and it's true now.

I'm curious to know why it seems to bother you that someone, somewhere out there is watching a critically acclaimed, but poorly rated show. Aren't the low ratings punishment enough for the show's creators and fans?