Art shakes the human mind. Sometimes to such an extent that reality and art seem to be too close of relatives. That is, if we consider art to be reality; the way the universe is laid out; in its natural motion.
To me it is fact that “life”, and “art” are different, that they are two separate things still equally absurd in nature with a cause and effect fluttering between the two. They’re both full of eerie turns and twists and occasionally we get lost in their materials. But defining art in the way that Stockhausen has, giving art too much freedom, allows it to contain no definite ends in it’s definition and instead allows us to consider the whole universe as a masterpiece, a work of art that is constantly moving and changing in its biological form. This isn’t necessarily a negative outlook on art, but it is a tad demented and broad.
Stockhausen considers art to function in the above way, to be infinite and to possess an uncanny ability to transform its viewers outside of their current mental states. In this sense, composition is somewhat of a phenomenon, a surprise. And we were surprised by 9/11. But because Stockhausen reduces art to such a simple form, as it can be applied to virtually anything within the universe that is composed, art is now all of reality, even a terrorist attack. It certainly is a beautiful definition, but there is a problem, and the problem is that his comment makes art seem too easy. It somehow takes away the importance of the human mind and intentional creation. It erases the line drawn between art and reality.
The attack on 9/11 was intentional, and a picture of two buildings exploding is moving, but as Tommasini puts it, this is an example of truth, not composition. At the same time it’s not necessary to assume that what is said here defines art as something untrue, because it’s just the opposite, as art still exists in a world built on truth. But the idea of an attack being called “art” allows anything in general to be art also, deteriorating the importance of its separation from life itself. Art is meant to be separate from reality, simply, an extension of our perception. It is a reaction of everyday existence. It is important and in the best interest of an artist to keep this separation.
-Larry
-Larry
It appears that when he remarked that 9/11 was the "greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos" Stockhausen did not expect to be castigated for it. In fact, he asked not to be quoted after realizing how the reporters were reacting to his comment. When something is labeled as “art” there is a supposed freedom to talk openly about it. However, when we label that very same thing as “reality” we are suddenly held responsible for our comments and everyone and their mother’s response to them. It is impossible to talk freely about an issue without offending someone somewhere. By keeping “art” and “reality” separate a form of free speech is preserved. The backlash to Stockhausen’s remark undermines that notion. If art is in fact an extension of reality and we have lost the privilege to talk openly about art, when did we lose the privilege of talking freely about reality?
-Oriana 
To claim that “life” and “art” are two separate entities is an accurate perception. However, it can be problematic to say that “art is now all of reality.” To create art, ideas are taken from reality. Art is a perception of what is real. A painting is just a figment of reality in the painter’s mind, just as anything performed or created is a figment of reality that the artist reproduces. While the act is indeed truth, to limit the definition of what can be art and to minimize its ability to stretch across the whole universe is to silence the perceptions and creations of artists. Art is not only a reaction but a part of one’s everyday existence. When the graffiti on the street, the billboards, and the bright signs don’t catch the attention the artist is hoping for, the artist enters people’s everyday lives through monumental events. While the death toll and the loss is truth, to limit an artist’s capacity to only create detached forms of art limits the artist’s freedom and creativity.
ReplyDeleteStockhausen’s response to 9/11 opened up the possibility of perceiving the event on an intellectual level. Forcing art to be completely separate from reality prevents us from interpreting real life events in any other way besides how society expects them to be viewed. Stockhausen does not reduce art to a simple form; rather he suggests that we interpret 9/11, and all things for that matter, on an aesthetic level rather than simply allow the rhetoric of the dominate culture to consume us. His comment should not necessarily be seen as defining art, for he was only indicating the grandeur and fascination of the particular event, citing it as an example of something that can truly captivate an audience regardless of whether it is morally sound. Stockhausen’s view on 9/11 and the criticism he received for it indicate hegemony at work, insisting that we separate reality from art and only perceive 9/11 as an attack on our “freedom.” Seeing art and reality as a blurred state allows for a truer and more intellectual understanding of events.
- - - should be free from pre existing terms and titles; the brute of creation stems directly from a single human mind which is unseen by any other. This is why it seems slightly naive and cheap for Stockhaussen to even consider assigning a definition or a value to something so personal and independent from the rest of a somewhat more understood and defined reality.
ReplyDeletelarry
“Art, like science, is a means of assimilating the world, an instrument for knowing it in the course of man’s journey towards what is called ‘absolute truth’.” This succinct definition of art was said by Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky, and I found it helpful because it clarifies the difference between art and reality. The word ‘assimilate’ is crucial in this definition because it displays how individuals perceive reality as their own, not as something universally shared, and this lack of unity comes from interpretation and perception. This means art is not the same as reality, but merely a representation of one artist’s perceived reality. The reality of 9/11 is in the facts surrounding the event, such as: death toll, devastation, ideologies, religious tensions, etc.
ReplyDeleteStockhausen’s claim that 9/11 was the “greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos” does not draw any line whatsoever between the two. Stockhausen’s claim portrays art as reality; Tarkovsky’s shows it as an interpretation of an individual’s subjective reality. Art is intentionally created by the artist, who makes a creative effort to convey a subjective experience through a certain medium. Even from an aesthetic approach the image of the planes converging with the buildings does not seem to be art, but more of an ‘image event’. I don’t view this as art because the act caused physical pain to those involved without their consent. Art shatter’s the mind, it doesn’t destroy human life.
With all this said, I agree with Larry’s comment: “Art is meant to be separate from reality, simply an extension of our perception. It is a reaction of everyday existence. It is important and in the best interest of an artist to keep this separation.” Art, therefore, is different from reality because it interprets it, and saying that an actual event such as 9/11 is art negates the entire medium as a whole. 9/11 wasn’t an interpretation, a representation, or a rendering of life/reality, instead it was an actual event void of representation. If this is the greatest work of art, then shouldn’t the Holocaust be considered as well, or even the bombing of Hiroshima?
-Tim