I have nothing against politically active art per se, so I don't want to be misconstrued here, but... The filmmakers who became "part of the homeless" are part of an all-to-common pattern in the arts of the past decade. By identifying themselves with some oppressed group, the filmmakers can take a posture as politically committed artists who are concerned with their community (which in some strong sense, they probably are). But at the same time by associating themselves with the "outsider" they reproduce a whole range of modernist myths about the artist as heroic exile. Of course ultimately what happens is that the work of the anonymous oppressed (the homeless, the insane, the abused) who play a role in the production of this politically committed art return to anonymity and the artist returns from "exile" to take his or her place in the gallery scene and the lecture circuit. Now this is a lot to heap on these filmmakers who are probably good-hearted souls, but this situation recalls the kind of "committed" art championed by Suzi Gablik of late, and it strikes me as a committment of a most superficial and questionable kind. ___________________________________________________________ James Peterson University of Notre Dame [log in to unmask] (219)631-7160