What does it mean to theorize 9/11 on a political or aesthetic level as something other than "attack" or "terrorist act"?
Both of the terms “attack” and “terrorist act” carry sentimental implications. Both terms also carry negative connotations, thus turning the person or group carrying out the attack/terrorist act into the ‘bad guy’. The receiver of these actions therefore becomes the ‘victim’. To theorize 9/11 as something other than these sentimental ideas is to imply that the theorist does not adhere to the thought that the United States are the ‘good guys’ and al-Qaeda constitute the ‘bad guys’. In turn, this insinuation suggests that whoever doesn’t sympathize with the United States may as well be a terrorist themselves (whatever that means). The jingoism that erupted after 9/11 condemned any action that may have seemed unpatriotic. American flags hung everywhere, not due to some surge of patriotic pride in everybody, but based on the national understanding that the lack of an American flag would be negatively regarded.
What are the aesthetic components of 9/11, according to Stockhausen?
What are the aesthetic components of 9/11, according to Stockhausen?
The events of September 11, 2001 provoked many emotions on the international level; some portions of the world’s population were distraught, shocked, and appalled, others terrified and disturbed, while others felt a sense of satisfaction and perhaps euphoria. This multitude of emotions is precisely what art is supposed to provoke. The artist, while they may desire a certain reaction, has no control over the affect their work has on the viewer, as art is subjective. As a composer, Stockhausen sought to reach people on a completely sensory and emotional level, and he appreciated that the events of 9/11 were able to do this. As an artist, he viewed the amount of preparation and attention to detail executed by the participants in the event, and related it to slaving over a composition noting, ''You have people who are so concentrated on one performance, and then 5,000 people are dispatched into eternity, in a single moment. I couldn't do that. In comparison with that, we're nothing as composers.'' In addition to the overflow of emotion around the world, the victims of 9/11 were forever changed by the event (albeit through death). Art has the potential to change for better or for worse, and whether the change is better or worse is entirely subjective. Stockhausen’s assertion that the events of 9/11 were “the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos” is not necessarily praise for violence, but instead an appreciation of the effort necessary to orchestrate and produce a pervasive reaction.
How do we define terrorism? How do we define art?
There is no all-encompassing definition for what constitutes art anymore. Through numerous movements, there has always been somebody driven towards the avant-garde. The outbreak of World War I corresponded to the beginnings of an especially revealing art movement, the Dada movement. Dada begs the question, “What is art, and who is in charge of deciding?” Dada brought any presupposed qualifications for art crashing to the ground. Marcel Duchamp’s readymade sculpture Fountain, which premiered in New York City in 1917, galvanized the artistic community and forced its viewers to question their own views on the boundaries imposed on art.
To view Fountain, click here: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Duchamp_Fountain.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/Marcel_Duchamp-_Fountain_%28Readymade-_1917%29-.asp&usg=__GCQu30DjDv35Na1gFyrcuG1NKx8=&h=520&w=403&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&sig2=1x3KVoOCLNmYWqlsuoLkyw&zoom=1&tbnid=kWwO-Xe9cLSZnM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=102&ei=5y2WTJW6I8K78gbztbCNDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dduchamp%2Bfountain%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D587%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1
To view Fountain, click here: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Duchamp_Fountain.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/Marcel_Duchamp-_Fountain_%28Readymade-_1917%29-.asp&usg=__GCQu30DjDv35Na1gFyrcuG1NKx8=&h=520&w=403&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&sig2=1x3KVoOCLNmYWqlsuoLkyw&zoom=1&tbnid=kWwO-Xe9cLSZnM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=102&ei=5y2WTJW6I8K78gbztbCNDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dduchamp%2Bfountain%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D587%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1
Duchamp’s Fountain is a urinal rotated 90 degrees and signed “R. Mutt.” The immediate reaction for some may be disgust. Perhaps the viewer would involuntarily visualize somebody using the urinal for its original purpose. Others may simply state, “That’s not art, that’s just a urinal.” Dada answers this dismissal with, “Why isn’t it art?”
Personally, I would suggest that anything (including films, paintings, home furnishings, landscaping, Lego sculptures, literally ANYTHING) that moves one to feel a certain way – terrified, giddy, horny, serene – should be considered art. Whether or not something induces a positive or negative reaction does not matter in the world of art. What is important is that a reaction exists. The most poisonous reaction one could have (not only to art, but to anything in life) is an indifferent reaction. After 9/11, there was a gargantuan reaction worldwide, which is all an artist ever wants for his or her creation. As a composer, Stockhausen is familiar with the artistic strive towards affecting people on an emotional level. On some unconventional level, his remark expresses a degree of jealousy at his inability to affect people as intensely as 9/11 did.
According to Merriam-Webster (available online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/), terrorism is defined as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” The organizers behind 9/11 plausibly fit into this definition; however, so does the schoolyard bully who beats other students up for their lunch money. Angus Martyn’s article “The Right of Self-Defense Under International Law – the Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11 September” (available at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/CIB/2001-02/02cib08.htm#international) addresses this blurry definition, directly stating that the international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. In 1985, despite the failure to define terrorism, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution “unequivocally condemn[ing], as criminal, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed...[and calling]s upon all States to fulfill their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in activities within their territory directed towards the commission of such acts.” How can one condemn an action fairly without being able to define it?
I find it a valid point that patriotism derived from the general understanding that it is required in order to blend in with the rest of society at the time. It seems true that the theory implied on something is merely because of the surroundings giving that theory basis.
ReplyDeleteThe way one views Stockhausen's remarks is simply the way one theorizes about anything. His quote, while offensive at first review, is not right nor wrong in any account. It seems to be either way only because of the surrounding influences giving way to the theory of how terrorism is or how patriotism should be viewed.
I seem to agree with the main ideas illustrated here, in which who is to say what art is? Everything seems to depend on the theory used.
This theory seems to also depend on its surroundings, thus the cycle of pervasive questioning.
-Sara Berthiaume
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis morning, I noticed that the leaves of the tree outside my apartment had changed colors and I reacted to this natural occurrence.
ReplyDeleteIf we agree that art is anything that inspires a reaction, is it necessary to consider the intent of the artist, or the presence of an artist behind something artistic? What I mean is, does the object or event being categorized as art need to be produced with the intent of inspiring a reaction? The reason I ask is because if there is no need for a creative agent seeking a reaction, then things outside human construct can be considered art. This is further complicated by the fact that art is a human construct. I guess the trouble I am having could be solved by simply stating that nature can produce art, but then everything is art, and for whatever reason, this definition strikes me as too broad.
Attempts to define art may prove illusive due to the fact that art is a human construct, thus its meaning is unstable, constantly changing depending on context. Generally, when I think of art in the broadest of terms, I think of a representation of real experiences or emotions. So, at the same time that art produces a reaction, it is a reaction itself. Thus, we are back to that bothersome habit of constantly deferring meaning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as this response is coming to the conclusion that Stockhausen’s remark considers art as being removed from the base/superstructure frame of mind. This perspective brings to light the opposition to this idea, for example, cultural institutions like religion and morality, which base themselves out of the superstructure and each use sentimentality as part of their control panel. These institutions attack art as an entity that is neither part of the base nor the superstructure, and therefore, an entity that they cannot control.
ReplyDeleteIn discussing art, we seem to be considering only visual pictures or events, when we are using art is an umbrella term for everything creative or that invokes emotion, including literature. When art exists outside of the realm of this ideology, the base/superstructure system’s comments on art are obsolete because art becomes objective. When aspects of the ideology, for example, morality, come into the limelight, a contradiction of ideals occurs. An example is Salman Rusdie in 1990 with his fatwa for writing the famous novel The Satanic Verses, which depicts scenes from the Qur’an in a saucy light and personify Muhammad as a steamy sexpot with lots of personal issues. In this interview, Rushdie comments on literature as art depicting social control in relation to cultural institutions in the superstructure. This is a reaction to the fit of social control he experienced with the fatwa and how he, as an “artist,” would suppose 9/11 to start to become present in literature. Rushdie uses War and Peace as an example.
The very idea that art could exist outside of the base/superstructure is as stated in the original post that jingoism subjugated all people without sentimental approaches toward September 11th, or, in other words, people who saw it as art, to the level of heathens. This ultimately brings up the topic of morality. Does any institution have the right to exist outside of the base/superstructure? Do institutions of the superstructure have to adhere to the objectivity of art? Can the base do anything about it? Do they want to?
Rushdie Interview
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4gs3nzLUZk
testing one two
ReplyDeleteStockhausen's relationship with the world, his concerns and feelings, are of a more transcendent nature than those of most people. We believe that Stockhausen's intended meaning when calling the 9/11 attacks a splendid artistic creation was far more innocent than the media and public interpretation. In this class we have discussed literature as a "discursive formation".
ReplyDeleteStockhausen went beneath the surface of the 9/11 attacks and was met with negative responses showing it really was at his own peril that he ventured to view the attack as something more. If art is supposed to make you feel something, then the events of 9/11 are indeed art. Yes, the definition of terrorism is blurry, but even if we have trouble defining it, it must be an art form too because of its ability to make people feel and react.
Art as a pure concept is relative only to what it changes or evokes in the viewer. In viewing September 11th as art, we are acknowledging the fact that it enabled an entire nation to feel and react in a certain way. Terrible though the attacks may be, to view them as unjustified or brash is to smooth over the rough edges of intention. In viewing September 11th as art we are acknowledging its ability to cataclysmically drive an entire nation backwards. After all, art as a pure concept is relative only to what it changes or evokes in the viewer. The same can be said for the acts of terrorism on 9/11.
Western society likes the idea of identifying with our own group because it gives us a sense of community. For example, the increase of American flags after 9/11 were supposedly symbols of our “unification.” However, Americans, became concerned with people who did not immediately adapt our patriotism, and united into two group: “us” versus ‘them”. The stanch jingoism that fueled criticisms of Stockhausen failed to appreciate his atheistic point of view.