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 <email@example.com
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
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
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Pattisapu" > >
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sad news - stockhausen
>> "[Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the
>> 11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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
>>> Vijay Pattisapu wrote:
>>> Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
>>> On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
>>> Cell: (469)877-9166
>>> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> -> questions: email@example.com
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> -> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> -> questions: email@example.com
>> -> 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.
> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> questions: email@example.com
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> -> 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/
-> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
-> questions: email@example.com
-> 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