Moore, Moore, Moore

A Reinforcement of Skepticism towards Documentaries

Well the first article to be read kept throwing documentaries I'd never heard of at me, the second article was a docu-document, and the third is about Michael Moore, the workingman's filmmaker. I found it interesting that he was seen as the aggressive counterpart of John Kerry's campaign, an attack dog for his supported politician. In discussion, I raised the question of why we need someone else to speak for our representatives, and everyone seemed to be pretty surprised/angry/reactive. So the people we vote for are only the image they are trying to portray, it's true. Candidates cannot do anything remotely "socially unacceptable". It's really kind of fucked up how our "representatives" are not real people. The ones who we see on TV and the ones who are shaking our hands at rallies are created entirely by writers and political advisors. I want a president that forgets to shave on certain days, a president that doesn't always tie a perfect tie, and more than anything, a president who truly says whatever he wants; maybe I want my president to say what needs to be said. Kind of ridiculous how what we care about is whether or not our candidate is wearing a lapel pin or who Kanye West thinks we should vote for.

OK, enough of my doubts regarding politics, documentaries are what I set out to write about, and more importantly, Michael Moore. He is a subjective filmmaker, he wants to convince those who watch his movies. His methods are questionnable, but he's just making a boring subject interesting by using his tricks learned in Hollywood. He is a good example of a man using his artistic ability to push a point, for if he didn't, his documentaries would not be as captivating, wouldn't reach as many people, and would turn out to be less effective. He is a better activist because of editing, and what kind of times are we in to question his cosmetic changes?
Enough of my frustration with politics, back to documentaries.

Police and the Private

Kind of look like an army of thoughtless robots, don't they?

How ironic that the very cause for which the CAE was fighting for was also the cause that brought Steve Kurtz to be considered a terrorist. He was trying to make science easier to understand, to make it so that it's not just the intellectual elite that understands it. Sadly, this was obviously not accomplished, and the police that came to his house saw chemicals and automatically assumed that they are dangerous and that Kurtz was planning some sort of terrorist attack. Even when the FBI, an organization who one would hope has more knowledge, didn't know what to do other than trash his house.

Aside from the drama associated with the investigation, I found the idea of his Art Ensemble to be very interesting, and introduced yet another perspective I had never thought of.

• I don't know why I never considered this, but why should art be created by only one person. It is entirely possible that three people work better together than each one individually, and I'm not talking about faster or more dilligently; they would inspire each other, push each other to think more critically, and generally do more than one would ever do individually.
• After considering this idea of collectives, I realized that we do live in an extremely individualistic society. As was put in the article, if a group of artists make better art than just each one individually, they will not be accepted. The odd thing is that collectives are rejected by most. On one side, being an individual is respected; these are the people that express themselves and are generally unlike other people. The other side of the coin entails mass culture; this is the idea that people will follow what others do and say, it is a sort of collective, but unlike the ensemble that Kurtz is part of. It is kind of like we stray away from the true potential of the ensemble.

Money, Four Artists, and Angry Republicans

Can Art be Defined and Regulated?

Well the NEA sure has risen from a fledgling department of the state to a fairly large organization with the aim to fund artists in America. I guess that once anything starts receiving a moderately large sum of tax money, some Conservative politicians will start being alarmed, especially if the said program funds artists that piss them off. Furthermore, the said politicians will try digging their hands into this program and try altering the funding, but one question arises: Who can really define who should and shouldn't be funded?

• Is it whoever the majority finds pleasing? But wouldn't this be an invasion on the freedom of speech? "Sure, you can create your art, but we won't give you any of the money set aside for creating art."
• Is it whoever a small group of artists deems appropriate? But who is this small group of people to decide how to spend the taxes of 300 million Americans? "Unless your artwork meets our stringent standards, we won't give you any money."
• Or should it just be whoever creates art, completely random? The NEA has a limited budget, and there really cannot be a way to decide who receives the money. As much as we'd love to define what completely neutral art is, we just cannot. As much as Christians hate to see their beloved Jesus Christ submerged in urine, I hate seeing the manifestation of one's suburban American Dream, there will always be lovers and haters.

Although I can undertand the Conservative unrest at the NEA, there is still no reason for the aggression in protesting it. This is a situation where things should just be talked over, not where Conservative activists outright call artists heathens and Satan incarnated. We all have certain things that anger us, and these are not as easily defined as anyone would like to believe.