Why Don't Artists Like George Bush?
Acting, directing, and writing, we are told is about making choices and fully committing to that choice. We respect making a choice and sticking to it.
And yet, in the political theater, we have an actor who has made a real clear choice, a choice after 9/11 to focus America's resources on a broad war on terror and to much criticism, Bush has stuck to his guns and committed to his choice.
Is this worthy of respect? Is it more worthy of respect that not making a choice at all? Or backtracking on a choice and not committing?
On the one hand, there are the critics of the choice itself. I suppose that is fair. Of course, it's easy to critique a performance, much harder to do one. But at the same time, we respect those who make choices that we wouldn't - or make choices that are interesting.
Along the same type of logic, Osama Bin Laden has made a choice. Should we respect that choice? He is committed. Is this what the people meant when talking about 9/11 as a work of art?
Maybe this is the wrong metric to be using when thinking about these things, then again, maybe there's something here....I guess that's what a blog is for.
6 comments:
i can't believe you just compared sticking with your choice as an artist to sticking with your choice as a politician.
do you honestly believe that's at all a reasonable comparison?
again, read the original entry. specifically, the last part.
Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but sticking to your guns ceases to be a virtue when you are sticking to a lost cause, in both art and politics.
But I don't think the comparison is out of line. Politicans routinely craft and sell narratives, and their ability to do so is part of their ability to lead.
Bush's narrative has turned out to complete bullshit. He chose a bad name for his war, shot in the wrong location, ignored potential cost overruns, didn't bother finishing the script before shooting the film. His narrative lasted three weeks, and after insufficient exposition he refused to address glaring complications in his narrative, choosing instead to rush to the climax and declare victory on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Now his narrative has turned into film that the director doesn't have an ending for, so he is trotting out WWII rhetoric for context, as though the language of that conflict will suffice in the year 2006.
As an artist, I'm upset that he's a real shitty artist. Even his life story, of spoiled rich kid who grows up quick in war presidency, is pretty weak. He could have at least been poor.
i read the whole entry. the part i disagree with is the beginning, where you compare the choice of an artist to that of a politician.
an artist makes decisions for himself and his work. he is not a representative of the people, nor does he have the charge to weigh the various options in any situation.
an artist can do whatever the hell he likes and is rewarded for sticking to his vision because that's what tends to make art unique.
on kevin's point, i'd argue that besides a vision, an artist also has a relationship with an audience.
on nate's point, with respect to bush's narrative being bullshit...the question is, once crafted, does one tweak the narrative or abandon it totally?
i still think there's validity to how bush sees the big picture with respect to foreign policy (not his personal narrative, but the america post 9/11 narrative) - and i think the best one to articulate that vision has been tony blair. they've gotten a lot of details wrong, and some right, but i still find it more compelling to strive for democracy in the region than settle for stability.
anyhow, i agree that sticking to a lost cause in art and politics is unwise. i guess i just disagree about whether it's a matter of tweaking or abandoning. that's always a tough call, in either.
Well, to call Iraq a lost cause is a bit extreme still, but I do think Bush's larger framework for the war on terror has been something of a failure, and the amount of destabilization has outweighed the benefits of our actions. I would obviously prefer more tweaking and acknowledgement of the reality that we face, rather than staying the course, and this has to do with my preferences.
What I don't understand is how you can read about how incompetently this administration has carried out its narrative, and somehow conclude that it was still better than following a more cautious narrative. The same people that are now arguing that Iran was the number one threat all along don't even realize the degree to which we've strengthend the Iranian hand by taking Saddam and getting stuck there ourselves.
The way I see it, if you promise big things, you had better deliver. And Bush has not delivered. Take it like a man and admit, I say. and if people vote you out, fine. But don't try and hide it, or pretend like this was all inevitable. No?
Post a Comment