It’s largely believed that awards and the bestowing of formal distinctions in arts and entertainment are largely biased, heavily political and unfair. For comedy, the high level of subjectivity in what one finds funny makes it even more difficult to establish who deserves to be called the “Funniest Comedian” or what “Outstanding Writing in a Music, Variety, or Comedy Series” constitutes or who really should get the annual Mark Twain Prize for Humor (Will Ferrell is getting it this year).
Louis C.K. was nominated for four Emmys and didn’t take a single one home. Though his TV series Louie is written extensively and continually by cultural gurus like Chuck Klosterman, it has never garnered the ratings of Big Bang Theory. Without even checking the numbers, Big Bang Theory is on a broadcast network, which automatically outperforms any single cable network, undoubtedly has millions of more people watching it than Louie. However, you can almost objectively, based off of overall critical reception, say that Louie is the better series. Despite all that, the blogosphere was up in arms over Jim Parsons (pictured above) of Big Bang Theory edging out Steve Carell as the Office‘s Michael Scott at this year’s Emmy Awards.
So, the question of how to determine who or what is the funniest anything still remains. Ratings, online chatter, and even votes leaves much to be decided in the process of trying to decide what’s worthy of a statue. Is this to remain a irreconcilable disagreement between voters and viewers? Is there a way to restructure the way comedy awards are doled out?
Give your thoughts below.