What is art?
September 19, 2001 9:16 AM Subscribe
posted by skittles at 9:31 AM on September 19, 2001
fishfucjek.
posted by fishfucker at 9:36 AM on September 19, 2001
I tend to believe Stockhausen. A lot of journalists seem to be obsessed with the question who is good and who is bad at this moment.
posted by tsja at 9:37 AM on September 19, 2001
Stockhausen Calls Attacks Works of Art: The pioneering electronic composer stated that, "Characters [that] can bring about in one act what we in music cannot dream of, that people practice madly for 10 years, completely, fanatically, for a concert and then die. That is the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos. I could not do that. Against that, we, composers, are nothing." He then apologized. (posted by ryanshepard)
posted by fishfucker at 9:39 AM on September 19, 2001
I hope people don't take this the wrong way, but what of the images of the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon? I've seen photos over the course of the past week that will haunt (obviously), inspire (images of bravery and people coming together), and just plain change me for the rest of my life. One could argue they are the most powerful kind of art. I'm still not attaching labels to anything right now, though...
posted by almostcool at 9:40 AM on September 19, 2001
Certainly I have to concur with Stockhausen to the extent that the terrorists' actions have had more effect on humanity this year than any painting or music composition. And if, as Stockhausen claims, he in fact said "Lucifer's greatest work of art", it would be hard to disagree.
But I think the context of the WTC tragedy was not art, but terrorism, plain and simple. And that's how we have to view the awful events.
posted by skylar at 9:45 AM on September 19, 2001
posted by dhartung at 9:51 AM on September 19, 2001
So, the attacks weren't "works of art" or "performances", but that they carried an aesthetic capacity makes them all the more troubling. It reminds me of the crowds who gathered to watch public executions in the 1700s, all the while analysing their own conflicting responses.
posted by holgate at 9:53 AM on September 19, 2001
posted by spilon at 9:54 AM on September 19, 2001
It was, but it shouldn't have been. The word "art" often means something quite different to an artist than to a non-artist. A "work of art" has a moral connotation to many people. Something has to be "good" to be considered a work of art. Artists, I think, often consider "bad" art to be "art" nonetheless.
posted by jpoulos at 9:57 AM on September 19, 2001
posted by tweebiscuit at 10:04 AM on September 19, 2001
We know well what he means by art, planned (or unplanned but appropriated) symbolic performance, what composers do.
posted by mblandi at 10:34 AM on September 19, 2001
In our televisual age, 'art' (whatever that means) is a cute anarchronism. In the past, art was a way of participating in writing history, but we live currently in an endless now-ever (Hakim Bey's term), and art has become dependent upon its enemy - the written word - in order to shore itself up against the ruins of history. And really, isnt asking a composer his opinion on politics a bit like asking George W to sing us a song...
The real error here was made by the people who cancelled the performances, as if Stockhausen's words would somehow infect the music. I need hardly make a list of great artists who were total creeps politically, but would mention the esteemed American architect Philip Johnson or Celine, Ezra Pound etc. (Nazi sympathizers all)
posted by fellorwaspushed at 10:40 AM on September 19, 2001
Assuming the "anarchronism" is just a typo and not the topic of an obscure manifesto, why would you say this? I mean, I know it's been fashionable to blame TV for the Death of Art for about fifty years now, but for those of us who actually try and create it, it gets kind of tiresome. Enduring snob appeal notwithstanding, the meme is elitist and fatalistic. On the other hand, if you've already given up on art, it is immensely comforting to think this.
In the past, art was a way of participating in writing history, but we live currently in an endless now-ever (Hakim Bey's term), and art has become dependent upon its enemy - the written word - in order to shore itself up against the ruins of history.
After countless attempts to understand this string of words (well, three times, and then I got tired), I have failed. Little help?
posted by Skot at 10:51 AM on September 19, 2001
Unfortunately the superabundance of this reality has lead to a great backlash whereby we now wish to make examples of everyone and anyone who happens to say not only things we disagree with but are part of reality, but even things which merely sound like something we would disagree with.
posted by clevershark at 11:21 AM on September 19, 2001
posted by holgate at 11:27 AM on September 19, 2001
-Laurie Anderson
posted by matthew at 12:10 PM on September 19, 2001
posted by Grangousier at 12:24 PM on September 19, 2001
posted by mkn at 1:48 PM on September 19, 2001
Sorry about the obtuseness, I have been reading McLuhan all week. What I meant is... art and the written word have traditionally been two distinct sense apparatus, but now art relies on textual explanation to be deemed 'important'. Thus, a white box a la Donald Judd becomes a metaphor for emptiness through the explanation of a critic, rather than remaining a white box. A Picasso painting, on the other hand, is a painting is a painting (to paraphrase Gertrude Stein). Yet to the powers that be, who write art history, each is an important artist. Of course, History cares little for opinions (my own included) and will ultimately determine which works are of value and which will be consigned to the wastebin of 20th century history.
I dont blame TV for the death of art, in fact TV may yet rescue art from the hegemony of verbal meaning. It is in TV, as in art or music or even poetry, that it is apparent that the medium is the message, whereas attempts at fixing meaning just muddy the waters, as evidenced by Stockhausen's misinterpreted comments.
posted by fellorwaspushed at 2:07 PM on September 19, 2001
posted by feelinglistless at 3:48 PM on September 19, 2001
posted by krisjohn at 5:54 PM on September 19, 2001
posted by Zurishaddai at 7:53 PM on September 19, 2001
The human mind can dual-process. That's all its is. Sometimes, the emotional response to a scene conflicts with the emotional response appropriate to the scene's greater (or lesser?) reality. dhartung pointed out another great example - the space shuttle tragedy. The visuals generated by that terrible phenomena were excruciatingly beautiful. We would all be healthier and less touchy if we would just admit our ability to see more than one thing at a time, and recognize that our interpretation of the individual layers of an event need not bend to an overriding theme.
I can imagine that a Robert Duval-like character in Vietnam really did love the smell of napalm in the morning. Noting that one shouldn't like it, since it involves incendiary jelly and melting skin, is an intellectual process unrelated to the initial processing of sensory input. Some of the night-time-fireworks during Desert Storm were hauntingly compelling. Volcanoes, fantastical lightning storms, tidal waves - all manner of the catastrophic offer up their own moments of breathtaking beauty. We process on different levels, and our real-time integration of the resultant data streams is a little tardy. It's the way we work. No point in apologizing for it.
posted by Opus Dark at 9:47 PM on September 19, 2001
Another Laurie Anderson quote comes to mind to describe the origin of this thread, it's from "Maria Teresa Teresa Maria", track 13 of "The Ugly One with The Jewels":
"A very sincere Swede who had never recovered from reading Siddartha..."
Change "Swede" to "German" and "Siddatha" to "Mao II".
posted by joemaller at 1:09 AM on September 20, 2001
« Older Doing what I can. | Northeast could face energy chaos, MIT expert... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Oh, now I understand.
Those wacky Germans! Some would describe Stockhausen's music as "the greatest work of terrorism one can imagine," so I'm not terribly outraged.
posted by Skot at 9:27 AM on September 19, 2001