Last week I finally got around to watching "The Last King of Scotland."  While it was good, very good, it didn't quite live up to my expectations. Recent films such as this one have in most cases been a "call to arms;" Hollywood is increasingly being used to educate and move the American public to action. "Blood Diamond" ends like an episode of "Captain Planet:" here are some facts, here's what you can do to help. And the environmental movies ("An Inconvenient Truth" and "11th Hour," along with some less popular ones) and the food industry movies ("Super Size Me,"  "Fast Food Nation") do the same. "The Last King of Scotland" tells us a story, a story that is largely based on truth, but it is missing the "How you can help" section.

It was a little scary that I had expected so much of a blockbuster hit. "The Last King" is not intended to move people to action, it's just not that kind of movie. Which is okay. But because it was a movie about a crucial contemporary social issue, I assumed its aim was to educate people of an issue that most would know little about unless a movie tells them.

There is an idea in this country that the media has dumbed itself down to engage the American public. That the reason the news spends more time on celebrity gossip than politics is that we are just not intelligent enough to have any interest in "hard news." Regardless of the reason for this shift in the media, what is true is this: reading or watching the news today often provides us with a clear picture of celebrity relationships and a watered-down and sometimes biased picture of other current events.

Interestingly, this "dumbing down" idea has translated into a more intelligent Hollywood, while the news seems to be getting worse. Entertainment is considered to be one of the best ways of reaching the largest amount of people, and film production companies are buying into this idea.

Here lies the problem: do people take social action art seriously? Do people go to a gallery or a movie theater ready to learn and be moved to action, or do they go to look at pretty pictures or watch a nice movie?

I think that the reason social action art is so powerful is that element of surprise. This is art: it's not supposed to teach us or move us. But it does. Think about the beautiful images of the Rwandan genocide or the Vietnam bombings.  They are technically gorgeous, and they stun and educate us.

ACP is a part of the "arts activism" movement on a grassroots level: we have a high school program that lets students create their own vision of a better society,  and create a slogan regarding that vision. We make posters and stickers with these slogans on them, and give them to the students to distribute.  

For these forms of art to have an impact on society they must be catchy, direct and informative. The AIDS poster campaigns of the eighties, for example, enabled a great movement in AIDS education and activism. People could no longer be oblivious to the issue: it was in subways, billboards, magazines and newspapers. Silence=Death was the slogan for posters by those involved with Act Up, and it was a simple and powerful message, not to mention one with an easily definable course of action.

Art is accessible. Art is tangible. Art is reactionary, and art makes us react. So shouldn't art should be at the forefront of social change?

~~E.West