sad news - stockhausen

Posted by sachiko hayashi | Fri Dec 7th 2007 4:25 p.m.

  • Vijay Pattisapu | Sun Dec 9th 2007 4:46 p.m.
    Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.

    On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi <look@e-garde.com> wrote:
    >
    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
    >
    >

    --
    Cell: (469)877-9166
  • Rhizomer | Mon Dec 10th 2007 11 a.m.
    i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a performance and i don't think that he approves 11september
    i didn't understand why they are saying all the things 'performance'?

    Vijay Pattisapu <lexicontrol@gmail.com> wrote:
    Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.

    On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
    >
    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
    >
    >

    --
    Cell: (469)877-9166
    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
  • Vijay Pattisapu | Tue Dec 18th 2007 5:09 p.m.
    [Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the Sept.
    11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a news
    conference in the northern German city of Hamburger, where several of
    the hijackers had lived.

    "The composer later apologized for his remarks, but the city still
    canceled performances of his works."

    In so many languages to say that "x is a work of art" to praise x,
    usually for its beauty. In that bland idiom, "art" is a bit different
    from how we use the word in other contexts (like Rhizome), because
    beauty is just a subset of art. Maybe. Maybe in the demotion I'm
    confusing beauty with aesthetic pleasure, which are two different
    things. Maybe beauty is the end of art. Need help here.

    I can't get into Stockhausen's head, but I speculate he was using
    "art" in its more direct sense, viz., he posed a possibility, albeit
    too strongly, of taking 9/11 as a performance.

    I think you'd agree, Nanny, that terrorism is performance, at least
    insofar as spectacle is the terrorist's goal as much or more than the
    actual violence.

    It is interesting, though not terribly useful, to collate here 9/11,
    Stockhausen's statement about it, and Nietzsche's epigram:

    "One imposes far too narrow limitations on art when one demands that
    only well-ordered, morally balanced souls may express themselves in
    it. As in the plastic arts, so in music and poetry too there is an art
    of the ugly soul beside the art of the beautiful soul; and the
    mightiest effects of art, that which tames souls, moves stones, and
    humanizes the beast, have perhaps been mostly achieved by precisely
    that art."

    I don't know. I've never even been to New York City, so my
    understanding of 9/11 is cheap.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mWW6kRITEY

    Vijay

    On 10/12/2007, nannykitachen <handsproje@gmail.com> wrote:
    > i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a performance and
    > i don't think that he approves 11september
    > i didn't understand why they are saying all the things 'performance'?
    >
    > Vijay Pattisapu <lexicontrol@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
    >
    >
    >
    > On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Cell: (469)877-9166
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    >
    > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

    --
    Cell: (469)877-9166
  • manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic | Tue Dec 18th 2007 7:01 p.m.
    NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"

    Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.

    If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H Stockhausen
    declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here start with(maybe)key
    question about relationship between reality/whatever it is, but in this case
    we suggest to take reality in colloquial sense/and culture/in entire
    appearance covered with this term/.Radical translation of possibly
    connections and mutual influences between those two totality could be useful
    for radical changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'.

    Strange thing's that similar words about 9/11 happening were impute to
    D.Hirst

    http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,790058,00.html

    Cheers

    MANIK

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Vijay Pattisapu" <lexicontrol@gmail.com>
    To: <handsproje@gmail.com>
    Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:09 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sad news - stockhausen

    > "[Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the Sept.
    > 11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a news
    > conference in the northern German city of Hamburger, where several of
    > the hijackers had lived.
    >
    > "The composer later apologized for his remarks, but the city still
    > canceled performances of his works."
    >
    > In so many languages to say that "x is a work of art" to praise x,
    > usually for its beauty. In that bland idiom, "art" is a bit different
    > from how we use the word in other contexts (like Rhizome), because
    > beauty is just a subset of art. Maybe. Maybe in the demotion I'm
    > confusing beauty with aesthetic pleasure, which are two different
    > things. Maybe beauty is the end of art. Need help here.
    >
    > I can't get into Stockhausen's head, but I speculate he was using
    > "art" in its more direct sense, viz., he posed a possibility, albeit
    > too strongly, of taking 9/11 as a performance.
    >
    > I think you'd agree, Nanny, that terrorism is performance, at least
    > insofar as spectacle is the terrorist's goal as much or more than the
    > actual violence.
    >
    > It is interesting, though not terribly useful, to collate here 9/11,
    > Stockhausen's statement about it, and Nietzsche's epigram:
    >
    > "One imposes far too narrow limitations on art when one demands that
    > only well-ordered, morally balanced souls may express themselves in
    > it. As in the plastic arts, so in music and poetry too there is an art
    > of the ugly soul beside the art of the beautiful soul; and the
    > mightiest effects of art, that which tames souls, moves stones, and
    > humanizes the beast, have perhaps been mostly achieved by precisely
    > that art."
    >
    > I don't know. I've never even been to New York City, so my
    > understanding of 9/11 is cheap.
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mWW6kRITEY
    >
    > Vijay
    >
    >
    >
    > On 10/12/2007, nannykitachen <handsproje@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a performance
    >> and
    >> i don't think that he approves 11september
    >> i didn't understand why they are saying all the things 'performance'?
    >>
    >> Vijay Pattisapu <lexicontrol@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Cell: (469)877-9166
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Send instant messages to your online friends
    >> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
    >
    >
    > --
    > Cell: (469)877-9166
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    > __________ NOD32 2731 (20071218) Information __________
    >
    > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
    > http://www.eset.com
    >
    >
  • Philip Galanter | Tue Dec 18th 2007 10:18 p.m.

    This is idiocy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to
    begin. I'll keep this short.

    (1) bin Laden is not an artist. He has no artistic intent. He does
    not work in an art context. His "creations" cannot be considered art
    from that point of view. 9/11 is not a work of art if one believes
    the artist has any say in such things.

    (2) But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader
    who determines whether something is art or not. Perhaps that is what
    you have in mind here. But what kind of person would think such a
    thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and
    anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other
    consideration.

    Such a person is a slave to reductionism.

    Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider
    little else. Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue
    of dogma, and consider little else. Such reductionism is a foolish
    approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that.

    Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of
    9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity.

    On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 PM, manik wrote:

    > "NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"
    >
    > Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.
    >
    > If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H
    > Stockhausen declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here
    > start with(maybe)key question about relationship between reality/
    > whatever it is, but in this case we suggest to take reality in
    > colloquial sense/and culture/in entire appearance covered with this
    > term/.Radical translation of possibly connections and mutual
    > influences between those two totality could be useful for radical
    > changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'.
    >
    > Strange thing's that similar words about 9/11 happening were impute
    > to D.Hirst
    >
    > http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,790058,00.html
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > MANIK
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Pattisapu" <lexicontrol@gmail.com
    > >
    > To: <handsproje@gmail.com>
    > Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:09 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sad news - stockhausen
    >
    >
    >> "[Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the
    >> Sept.
    >> 11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a
    >> news
    >> conference in the northern German city of Hamburger, where several of
    >> the hijackers had lived.
    >>
    >> "The composer later apologized for his remarks, but the city still
    >> canceled performances of his works."
    >>
    >> In so many languages to say that "x is a work of art" to praise x,
    >> usually for its beauty. In that bland idiom, "art" is a bit different
    >> from how we use the word in other contexts (like Rhizome), because
    >> beauty is just a subset of art. Maybe. Maybe in the demotion I'm
    >> confusing beauty with aesthetic pleasure, which are two different
    >> things. Maybe beauty is the end of art. Need help here.
    >>
    >> I can't get into Stockhausen's head, but I speculate he was using
    >> "art" in its more direct sense, viz., he posed a possibility, albeit
    >> too strongly, of taking 9/11 as a performance.
    >>
    >> I think you'd agree, Nanny, that terrorism is performance, at least
    >> insofar as spectacle is the terrorist's goal as much or more than the
    >> actual violence.
    >>
    >> It is interesting, though not terribly useful, to collate here 9/11,
    >> Stockhausen's statement about it, and Nietzsche's epigram:
    >>
    >> "One imposes far too narrow limitations on art when one demands that
    >> only well-ordered, morally balanced souls may express themselves in
    >> it. As in the plastic arts, so in music and poetry too there is an
    >> art
    >> of the ugly soul beside the art of the beautiful soul; and the
    >> mightiest effects of art, that which tames souls, moves stones, and
    >> humanizes the beast, have perhaps been mostly achieved by precisely
    >> that art."
    >>
    >> I don't know. I've never even been to New York City, so my
    >> understanding of 9/11 is cheap.
    >>
    >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mWW6kRITEY
    >>
    >> Vijay
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 10/12/2007, nannykitachen <handsproje@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a
    >>> performance and
    >>> i don't think that he approves 11september
    >>> i didn't understand why they are saying all the things
    >>> 'performance'?
    >>>
    >>> Vijay Pattisapu <lexicontrol@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Cell: (469)877-9166
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Cell: (469)877-9166
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >> __________ NOD32 2731 (20071218) Information __________
    >>
    >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
    >> http://www.eset.com
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
  • Erika Lincoln | Wed Dec 19th 2007 10:01 a.m.
    having watched the live TV feeds of second plane crashing into the second tower, then watching the buildings collapse. I have to say that the broadcast of the attacks were spectacular in the true sense of what the word means. I am separated geographically and maybe/probably culturally from the actual event, which means my frame of reference is from the transmitted event not the event itself. In describing the transmission/broadcast as spectacular or a specticle I think is true. Being on the ground in New York or at the Pentagon or in the third plane is something completely different. perhaps this is what Vijay is referring to in Stockhausen's statement.
  • Rhizomer | Thu Dec 20th 2007 3:05 p.m.
    in this reason, we say cultural studies especially have nothing to do with politics or political reductionists...people's lives are not their market....we, as a citizens we are not their object of mass media or art! we are trying to survive.. we have also lives that we want to keep away from market!

    Philip Galanter <list@philipgalanter.com> wrote:
    This is idiocy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to
    begin. I'll keep this short.

    (1) bin Laden is not an artist. He has no artistic intent. He does
    not work in an art context. His "creations" cannot be considered art
    from that point of view. 9/11 is not a work of art if one believes
    the artist has any say in such things.

    (2) But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader
    who determines whether something is art or not. Perhaps that is what
    you have in mind here. But what kind of person would think such a
    thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and
    anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other
    consideration.

    Such a person is a slave to reductionism.

    Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider
    little else. Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue
    of dogma, and consider little else. Such reductionism is a foolish
    approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that.

    Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of
    9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity.

    On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 PM, manik wrote:

    > "NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"
    >
    > Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.
    >
    > If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H
    > Stockhausen declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here
    > start with(maybe)key question about relationship between reality/
    > whatever it is, but in this case we suggest to take reality in
    > colloquial sense/and culture/in entire appearance covered with this
    > term/.Radical translation of possibly connections and mutual
    > influences between those two totality could be useful for radical
    > changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'.
    >
    > Strange thing's that similar words about 9/11 happening were impute
    > to D.Hirst
    >
    > http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,790058,00.html
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > MANIK
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Pattisapu" > >
    > To:
    > Cc:

    > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:09 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sad news - stockhausen
    >
    >
    >> "[Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the
    >> Sept.
    >> 11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a
    >> news
    >> conference in the northern German city of Hamburger, where several of
    >> the hijackers had lived.
    >>
    >> "The composer later apologized for his remarks, but the city still
    >> canceled performances of his works."
    >>
    >> In so many languages to say that "x is a work of art" to praise x,
    >> usually for its beauty. In that bland idiom, "art" is a bit different
    >> from how we use the word in other contexts (like Rhizome), because
    >> beauty is just a subset of art. Maybe. Maybe in the demotion I'm
    >> confusing beauty with aesthetic pleasure, which are two different
    >> things. Maybe beauty is the end of art. Need help here.
    >>
    >> I can't get into Stockhausen's head, but I speculate he was using
    >> "art" in its more direct sense, viz., he posed a possibility, albeit
    >> too strongly, of taking 9/11 as a performance.
    >>
    >> I think you'd agree, Nanny, that terrorism is performance, at least
    >> insofar as spectacle is the terrorist's goal as much or more than the
    >> actual violence.
    >>
    >> It is interesting, though not terribly useful, to collate here 9/11,
    >> Stockhausen's statement about it, and Nietzsche's epigram:
    >>
    >> "One imposes far too narrow limitations on art when one demands that
    >> only well-ordered, morally balanced souls may express themselves in
    >> it. As in the plastic arts, so in music and poetry too there is an
    >> art
    >> of the ugly soul beside the art of the beautiful soul; and the
    >> mightiest effects of art, that which tames souls, moves stones, and
    >> humanizes the beast, have perhaps been mostly achieved by precisely
    >> that art."
    >>
    >> I don't know. I've never even been to New York City, so my
    >> understanding of 9/11 is cheap.
    >>
    >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mWW6kRITEY
    >>
    >> Vijay
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 10/12/2007, nannykitachen wrote:
    >>> i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a
    >>> performance and
    >>> i don't think that he approves 11september
    >>> i didn't understand why they are saying all the things
    >>> 'performance'?
    >>>
    >>> Vijay Pattisapu wrote:
    >>> Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Cell: (469)877-9166
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Cell: (469)877-9166
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >> __________ NOD32 2731 (20071218) Information __________
    >>
    >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
    >> http://www.eset.com
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
  • Vijay Pattisapu | Fri Dec 21st 2007 3:01 a.m.
    I will address the ideas of Philip, Manik, Erika, and Nanny individually. First, five prefatory remarks and one question/tangent:

    i. Let us not conflate "aesthetic" with "artistic." Aesthetic (fr. Gk. "aisth/" ("to perceive")) dimensions exist for anything: a dog, Russian Constructivism, the weather, my mother's absence, 9/11, a YouTube video of 9/11, etc. Conscious beings perceive lots of things in lots of ways, i.e., they have aesthetic experiences of them. We are discussing the possibility of ARTISTIC dimensions of 9/11. Which unfortunately triggers the NP-hard(est) question "What is art?" ;-)

    ii. Again, colloquially, to say "X is art" is to praise X. We have been and will continue to avoid that colloquial usage in this thread. Hence as far as I can tell, none of us is praising 9/11 or bin Laden.

    iii. That said I abhor the 9/11 attacks and do not sympathize with al-Qaeda. (This is not to charge any of you of charging me with the opposite; it's just that, as a brown man growing up in small Texas towns, I am used to being clear about it to an extent that northeastern Americans or Europeans may find strange.)

    iv. Yet there are nontrivial moral implications of asking and answering the question "Is 9/11 art?" Thanks to Philip and Manik for bringing this up.

    v. We have not answered the question itself yet. Everyone's arguments so far-confirming or denying "Is 9/11 art?"-including my own attempt-remain unconvincing. So let us not project positions onto people yet.

    vi. (Should we avoid the 9/11-was-an-inside-job perspective on this question? I don't know anything about those theories, but if someone does and could bring them to bear on this question-which, in that case, becomes a different question-then I'd be much obliged.)

    ******************************

    Philip:

    "This is idiocy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to
    begin. I'll keep this short.

    "(1) bin Laden is not an artist. He has no artistic intent. He does
    not work in an art context. His "creations" cannot be considered art
    from that point of view. 9/11 is not a work of art if one believes
    the artist has any say in such things."

    (2) But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader
    who determines whether something is art or not. Perhaps that is what
    you have in mind here. But what kind of person would think such a
    thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and
    anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other
    consideration."

    Let us leave the "Barthes-on-steroids" stuff out of this. It has become fashionable in Rhizome to dismiss critical theory qua critical theory. That is sloppy. Talk about what ideas DENOTE over what they CONNOTE. Discuss the merits and flaws of ideas themselves, no matter where the pointy end of the cartoon dialogue bubble points. Anything else is either dodging the question or prejudice.

    "Such a person is a slave to reductionism.

    "Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider
    little else. Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue
    of dogma, and consider little else. Such reductionism is a foolish
    approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that."

    It remains for you to show how an artistic perspective on the world excludes other perspectives.

    Some political acts have religious dimensions (e.g., the fight to ban abortion). Some religious acts have political dimensions (e.g., social networking in churches).

    Likewise, just as some artistic acts have political dimensions, some political acts have artistic dimensions. The question we are wrestling with is whether 9/11 is such a political act.

    To suggest a dimension for an act is not to reduce said act wholly to said dimension.

    If I assert: "AN APPLE IS RED," does that imply "AN APPLE IS NOT ROUND"?

    Similarly, if I assert: "9/11 IS ART," it does not follow that "9/11 IS NOT [everything that we know it to be]." If it does follow, the burden of proof is Philip's.

    "Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of
    9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity."

    It is inappropriate to call into question our humanity for probing a question.

    *****************************

    Erika:

    "having watched the live TV feeds of second plane crashing into the second tower, then watching the buildings collapse. I have to say that the broadcast of the attacks were spectacular in the true sense of what the word means. I am separated geographically and maybe/probably culturally from the actual event, which means my frame of reference is from the transmitted event not the event itself. In describing the transmission/broadcast as spectacular or a specticle I think is true. Being on the ground in New York or at the Pentagon or in the third plane is something completely different. perhaps this is what Vijay is referring to in Stockhausen's statement."

    Yes.

    But this implies the spectacle can be separated from the act. How and why?

    If the agency behind the spectacle was cable news, why did the terrorists choose such an iconic place as the World Trade Center?

    Terrorism is different from war in that terrorism aims to create, alongside violence, terror, spectacle.

    ******************************

    Manik:

    "NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"

    "Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.

    "If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H Stockhausen
    declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here start with(maybe)key
    question about relationship between reality/whatever it is, but in this case
    we suggest to take reality in colloquial sense/and culture/in entire
    appearance covered with this term/.Radical translation of possibly
    connections and mutual influences between those two totality could be useful
    for radical changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'."

    Handke's statement, modulo your catachresis of it, is a compelling/visceral description of 9/11's aesthetic (and maybe artistic) effect.

    Is art's role to provide this "warmth" and "description"? (does art have a role?)

    ****************************

    Nanny:

    "in this reason, we say cultural studies especially have nothing to do with politics or political reductionists...people's lives are not their market....we, as a citizens we are not their object of mass media or art! we are trying to survive.. we have also lives that we want to keep away from market!"

    Nanny, I'd point you to what I wrote to Philip, above. These things are not so exclusive.

    Of course culture and cultural studies have something to do with politics. That's why we're having the discussion that we're having right now! :-)

    Thanks for putting up with such a long post!
    -Vijay

  • Joan Collins | Sat Nov 15th 2008 11:39 a.m.
    “An act like [suicide] is prepared within the silence of the heart, as is a great work of art.” Camus
Your Reply