"Idea of the Day" over at the NYT is drawing attention to the debate around the politics of Easy Rider, as briefly summarized in an obit of Dennis Hopper written by the libertarian magazine Reason.
Like most debates about the "political message" of any cultural object, this one intrigues at first, but quickly becomes boring. The main reason is that any cultural artifact that really succeeds among sophisticated critics over the long-term tends to be rich, complex, and unpredictable: almost by definition, it does not have a single message, political or otherwise...its message changes with its contexts.
A ludicrous metaphor should help explain how silly this form of interpretation is. Trying to determine whether a work of art generally supports left-wing or right-wing causes is like trying to determine whether a kitten generally faces East or West. First, you're using a simplistic measure ("left or right? East or West?") in a reality that has a lot of other possible orientations. Then, you're applying that bad framework to a highly unstable object that, in its ideal state, will change directions frequently, or challenge the notion of directionality in the first place.
The only interesting thing about these kinds of readings is watching how the interpreter turns somersaults to try to claim that his inadequate tools fit the complexity of real life, or real art--and there can, occasionally, be a kind of artistry even in those gymnastics. But for the most part (especially on the internet), the exercise of showing how a work is "progressive," "conservative," or "apparently-conservative/progressive-but-secretly-progressive/conservative" can only go so many ways, and those ways are all well-traveled. It's time to prioritize new, more interesting approaches.
