When analyzing Stockhausen's statement, cultural socialization is a variable that needs to be considered. Stockhausen is German, not American. He is also a composer. Already, he is in a context outside of American realist ideology.
Art may be defined as symbolic elements that are constructed, arranged and composed to affect human senses, emotions and rationale through activities, creations and modes of expression. Art is also a displayed skill of mastery. Stockhausen sees art as a skill of mastery, as composers practice, practice, practice to produce the most exquisite or alluring performance that has been the goal of their life. For Stockhausen, the performance ofSeptember 11, 2001 was mastered within a single occurrence. In his eyes, the magnitude of this single occurrence exemplifies what could be seen as mastery. Because of his cultural context differences such as narratives and ideologies, his comment is seen as grotesque to Anthony Tommasini, who was born and raised in the United States of America
In this instance we could speculate that Stockhausen views the orchestration as apart from the superstructure; as really “art” outside the realm of American ideology. We can allow ourselves to see “art” as relatively autonomous. Because Tommasini is influenced by the American narratives of sentimentalism (created by the commemoration speech of Bush and his branded “War on Terrorism”) and because the New York Times is a media controlled by like minded individuals, the very idea of referring to the event of September 11, 2001 as “art” in the eyes of a composer is outside the sphere of recognizing it as anything but.
According to Tommasini, “art” is outside the realm of reality. However, Tommasini’s reality is not Stockhausen’s reality, due to cultural socialization. In defense of Stockhausen, Tommasini is flawed in attacking Stockhausen through explaining how he does not recognize “art” to be part of his reality. To take the event ofSeptember 11, 2001 into another context and intellectual criterion is to go beyond the barriers of the instilled American propaganda. Politically and cross-culturally, this image has promoted a controlled opposition, the war of our age: the Western World versus the Islamists. By politically and aesthetically analyzing the event of September 11, 2001 as “art” is to go against the labeled promotion for the American team: if you’re not (all) with us, you are therefore a terrorist.
As a result, “terrorism” is a term that has been created by American narratives and propaganda. The cultural anthropology is the root to discerning the terminology; “terrorism” becomes a politically charged term. It becomes significant to indicate that the international community, or the United Nations, has been unable to agree on the definition of terrorism, suggesting the contingency of the term. In lieu with this subject, the deconstructed and most plausible explanation for the term may be identified as the characteristics that compose the legitimate incentives of political groups. The complication of this signification is the disrespect it may allude to family members and relatives of those who were killed in the event onSeptember 11, 2001 .
There is a separation between the “greatest work of art” that Stockhausen has understood as the event onSeptember 11, 2001 and the Terrorist Attack of 9/11 that individuals subjected to the controlled media have come to know. Clashes of political agenda and human-tied emotions have charged the 9/11 image to the American public. The American realist ideology has managed to take an event that took the lives of 2,819 people and stir it with sentimental notions and conservative moral values through repetitive images of the World Trade Center Iraq
-Micha
- Jessica
Art may be defined as symbolic elements that are constructed, arranged and composed to affect human senses, emotions and rationale through activities, creations and modes of expression. Art is also a displayed skill of mastery. Stockhausen sees art as a skill of mastery, as composers practice, practice, practice to produce the most exquisite or alluring performance that has been the goal of their life. For Stockhausen, the performance of
In this instance we could speculate that Stockhausen views the orchestration as apart from the superstructure; as really “art” outside the realm of American ideology. We can allow ourselves to see “art” as relatively autonomous. Because Tommasini is influenced by the American narratives of sentimentalism (created by the commemoration speech of Bush and his branded “War on Terrorism”) and because the New York Times is a media controlled by like minded individuals, the very idea of referring to the event of September 11, 2001 as “art” in the eyes of a composer is outside the sphere of recognizing it as anything but.
According to Tommasini, “art” is outside the realm of reality. However, Tommasini’s reality is not Stockhausen’s reality, due to cultural socialization. In defense of Stockhausen, Tommasini is flawed in attacking Stockhausen through explaining how he does not recognize “art” to be part of his reality. To take the event of
As a result, “terrorism” is a term that has been created by American narratives and propaganda. The cultural anthropology is the root to discerning the terminology; “terrorism” becomes a politically charged term. It becomes significant to indicate that the international community, or the United Nations, has been unable to agree on the definition of terrorism, suggesting the contingency of the term. In lieu with this subject, the deconstructed and most plausible explanation for the term may be identified as the characteristics that compose the legitimate incentives of political groups. The complication of this signification is the disrespect it may allude to family members and relatives of those who were killed in the event on
There is a separation between the “greatest work of art” that Stockhausen has understood as the event on
-Micha
The “War on Terrorism” has become its own hegemony. The Bush Administration took advantage of its ability to manage what we hear and see in the media and used it to influence our perception of what took place and what needed to take place. Phrases like, “It changed us forever” and “Good versus Evil” were on the cover of every newspaper and magazine for months to follow. The aesthetic images taken at the WTC were seen over and over again on every news station and bill board across the country. These are examples of the Administration's tactics used to control the flow of information that we have access to, in its effort to manipulate us into supporting the war.
We were "rhetorically coerced" into believing that the war was necessary. American ideology is clearly influenced by the politicial elitists that run our country. Tommasini's reaction to Stockhausen's comment and his inability to see 9/11 as anything but an "attack" or "terrorist act" is a direct reflection of how his perception of 9/11 has been controlled by American Ideology.
We were "rhetorically coerced" into believing that the war was necessary. American ideology is clearly influenced by the politicial elitists that run our country. Tommasini's reaction to Stockhausen's comment and his inability to see 9/11 as anything but an "attack" or "terrorist act" is a direct reflection of how his perception of 9/11 has been controlled by American Ideology.
The influence of our government over our perceptions of events and ideas continues to exist today which is why it is important for us to develop skills in becoming critical thinkers. The Marxist perspective encourages us to do just that. Our current social culture discourages individuals from looking beyond what’s directly in front of them. As described in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, we need look beyond the shadows to find the true form of what is really in front of us.
- Jessica
The conversation between Derrida and the (unnamed) man about the concept of people being filmed in everyday life is a fictitious tale of real life is interesting. There are many reality shows on television today that create celebrities. The creation of these "celebrities" through reality television, or regular people being filmed is shameful. Many Americans idolize the cast of the “Jersey Shore" because they think the cast’s lifestyle is funny and cool. The truth is the “Jersey Shore” cast is probably not as outrageous and quirky when they are not being filmed. Derrida’s statement that the people behind the filming process create a fictitious tale of real life is absolutely correct. The MTV filmmakers that work on the “Jersey Shore” skew what the cast is like and they play up the drama and action that occurs in order to create entertaining television. The cameras play up the moments when there is a little bit of drama and base the entire episode around it. What would be interesting about Ronnie and Sam having a normal, healthy relationship? At the same time, the cast members of the show most likely act differently because they know they are being filmed. They know that people love them for being outrageous, so they act even more outrageous.
ReplyDeleteI think that part of the reason Derrida fights the whole filming process is because he does not want to be seen as someone he is not. He does not want to get caught up in acting differently just because he is being watched. When the interviewer plainly asked about love, Derrida replies that he has nothing to say about it and he can’t answer the question. Then he says, “Maybe that is what you want me to say for cameras.” The fact that Derrida shows such skepticism about the filming process reveals that he dislikes it because of its falsities. However, the fact that the filmmakers include him saying statements such as this, shows that they want to make a good documentary and capture Derrida in the truest way they can.