What you're referring to below is the craft and that can be discussed but not using the same critical tools as a critique of rhetoric. The art is something even more elusive. And you defined it as a 'fascinating work of art'. I would have argued for another adjective.
It's a piece of communicative art that works amazingly well in communicating a gut-wrenching sense of betrayal.
Martin
On Jul 11, 2004, at 4:24 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> It's possible to discuss the artistry of Michael Moore displayed in
> Fahrenheit 9/11 without talking about any part of the film's politics
> at all. We can talk about compositions of frames, camera movements,
> editing, etc., as some viewers have here and elsewhere, but I don't
> know why you think it illegitimate to talk about the politics of a
> self-consciously political work of art, evaluating it by a political
> standard. Wouldn't it be odd to evaluate the politics of Fahrenheit
> 9/11 solely by an artistic standard, even if it were possible to do
> so?