Jared's posting on the Spectacle

I actually wrote on the spectacle for our first assigned essay, so I will try not to sound too repetive. I'm not making any promises though.

I'm actually a big fan of spectacle in the public sphere, as well as in art in general. I can understand how there would be a huge downside to spectacular forms and their appeals to the emotional sides of us; but I think these spectacular appeals are a testament to the intangible power of emotion (as corny as that sounds). A good example of how spectacles are more effective in gaining interest and inspiring spectators is Michael Moore. It seems pretty widely accepted that his "documentaries" are not true documentaries, because of their lack of focus on factual information and accompaniment of strong emotional appeals. However, I think most spectators (or at least spectators with somewhat similar political philosophies to Moore) are much more inclined to be inspired and compelled by the counter-propaganda that Michael Moore provides compared to a stale, extremely factually-dense documentary that does nothing more than inform. The popularity of and sales of Moore's films seem to support that claim.