I don’t think there’s much to be gained from trying to decide what big political or philosophical label best applies to him (or, indeed, ourselves).
He clearly either doesn’t know or doesn’t care.
Ignoring my advice somewhat… I think it’s much more interesting to view him through an artistic lens. He’s basically painting a picture with video and audio and adding a sort of guided tour narration.
Or, to put it another way, watching his stuff is more like wandering around a gallery with a guide, than diving into a textbook.
I tend to pair him up with Jonathan Meades in that respect. Neither seem to be offering any particular answers, but are instead offering us perspectives.
I think their similarities and differences are quite interesting. With Curtis tending towards a focus on how we’re shaped by our created social systems, and Meades tending towards a focus on how our physical built environment is a reflection of the prevailing culture.
And from there, we’re invited to reflect on what’s been presented, and then draw our own conclusions, rather than buy into some sort of doctrine.
Though, certainly, both seem to have a dim view of much of what those with power do with it. But where Curtis seems to wrestle with ‘wanting to believe’, Meades seems to very much not.
And at this point, I’m my aware that that’s a focus on two old white guys, and there’s certainly plenty to be gained by going beyond the worldview that will be embedded in them, despite whatever sense of rebellion they present.
