sad news - stockhausen

Comments

, Erika Lincoln

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.

, Vijay Pattisapu

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

“An act like [suicide] is prepared within the silence of the heart, as is a great work of art.” Camus