Society avoids rattling a moral normative because we are discursively produced to sensationalize anything horrific. That which becomes even more frightening than the thing itself, is the suggestion to resist that ideology which the masses has turned it into. In the circumstance of Stockhausen’s remark that the planes colliding into the World Trade Center was “the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos” many were repulsed. Anyone who is being honest would say that their reaction is to turn away from this statement in horror; however, if we defy the sentimentalism that has been imposed upon us from the beginning, we can begin to deconstruct the meaning of Stockhausen’s words.
Stockhausen was looking at the composition of this terrorist attack because he is a renowned composer. He admired, not in a way of longing to be like the terrorists, but with a kind of awe that anyone would have the ability to shock and vastly change the lives of millions in a single act. He marveled at the planning and execution of such a composition that was so great, so enormous, that it killed those who were involved. He was not fond of the terrorists and was not trying to congratulate them with a proverbial “well done”, but he was able to deconstruct 9/11 without concerning himself with the stereotypes or worrying that his deconstruction would offend others.
Freud’s theory of the uncanning is the concept of an instance where something is simultaneously familiar and foreign, this causes immense discomfort and causes rejection, because it is easier to reject than to rationalize (Gray). Society as a majority does not accept Stockhausen and his comment but cannot help but cast endless judgment in his direction. We are horrified yet obsessed at the same time. There is a paradoxical nature of being attracted to, yet repulsed by what Stockhausen is tapping into. The cultural normative forces us into the motivational drive to reduce dissonance; however, in our discomfort and our dislike for the lack of harmony we find pleasure. Dissonance is the clash resulting from disharmony or unsuitable elements; or a lack of musical harmony among musical notes (Gray). Does Stockhausen purposely ignite cognitive dissonance in his comment or is it innate, the subconscious tendency of a composer, to create a new harmony? It’s possible that we all have a desire to create something that will not go unnoticed, whether the reaction from the public is good or bad. Do we merely need attention-any kind of attention- need to be talked about so that we know that people are listening? Isn’t it this push and pull between anti-intellectualism and deconstruction that keeps us moving forward? Or does it keep us from moving forward?
It seems that because of the sensitivity surrounding the issue, 9/11 has been constructed into an image rather than just an event. The media and society does not want to offend or upset people who are directly or indirectly connected to this day. We censor what is said and how it is said in order to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or coming across as lacking compassion. In addition, anyone who looks at 9/11 through a new lens runs the risk of seeming antipatriotic and undeserving of the title “American”. This filtering effect that our every thought and idea takes place not only around us but within us-we are trained to tell our minds not to go to a certain place. We tell ourselves not to think this or that because it is dark and politically incorrect-without our knowledge society has grown to such power that it stops individuality before it even has the chance to emerge from within us. Stockhausen penetrates this control with his insightful words, not with the purpose to offend but to push us into a new way of thinking.
Stockhausen should be rewarded for his bravery, instead of only being criticized for his remark. Even though anyone could potentially face ridicule and judgment for almost anything they say, Stockhausen took the risk of taking a step back from the situation at hand and commented on an event with a huge emotions attached to it.
ReplyDeleteStockhausen was interested in deconstructing the attacks of 9/11 and tried not to focus on the judgement that would follow. He deserves credit for going against the ideas of society. He was able to look at the good aspects of a detrimental event. Stockhausen knew that the media would sensationalize the event, so he chose to take an opposite stance. He was able to appreciate the execution and preciseness of the event. It is important for those who feel offended by his comment, to realize that he was not trying to applaud the terrorists. This is why many Americans were offended by his remark. They felt that he was being unsympathetic and unpatriotic, when really he was just being a critic. He was not trying to offend anyone, but he didn't want to censor his thoughts either.
Censoring is put into place to help prevent negativity and to prevent certain ideas that go against the ideology of society from being leaked. In turn it actually causes more tension because when those break through the censorship barrier, they are judged by those around them. Stockhausen was not looking to hurt people with his remark, but rather wanted people to think beyond what they media told them too. He was promoting a new way of thinking.
In regards to the push and pull between anti-intellectualism and deconstruction, it is possible that these disagreements move us forward. By the American public showing hostility towards Stockhausen, a conversation emerged about considering new and different ideas. If we do not have those that deconstruct aspects of society and others to show their hostility we would not learn from one another. Although tension emerges, sometimes this tension creates the perfect classroom for the exchange of ideas.
When Stockhausen made his comment about 9/11 several years ago, I do not think that he was intending to offend hundreds of thousands of people. Rather, it seems that he was making a statement that many other people were afraid to make during the time. The question, “Does Stockhausen purposely ignite cognitive dissonance in his comment or is it innate, the subconscious tendency of a composer to create a new harmony”, is posed in this blog. I would like to argue the Stockhausen did not make this comment in order to get a rise out of his listeners. I believe that he made it because it is truly the way that he viewed 9/11 as a composer and a man of art.
ReplyDeleteAs this blog also states, Stockhausen, being a composer, looked at this event from a composer’s view point. He was able to deconstruct the event differently than a lot of other people which is why he made the comment that he made. It does not seem that he intended the comment as an attack at America; rather he was stating how he saw the event. In reality however this statement offended hundreds because they were not able to look at 9/11 from Stockhausen’s point of view.
The idea of Freud’s theory of the uncanny is a perfect way to relate Stockhausen’s comment to the way that people have reacted to it. People are both marveled and horrified by his comment and don’t know how to internalize it because if they agree then they will be dubbed as “un-American”. After 9/11 the nation felt that they had to be politically correct at all times and to make any type of offensive or outrageous comment about 9/11 was considered ludicrous, and nine years later it still is. The media has also done a fantastic job at censoring what and how people talk about 9/11. To look at 9/11 as anything but a tragedy in this nation would mean that you were un-patriotic so people refuse to do so. Stockhausen was brave enough to take a step back and look at the event from a different view-point, which is why he phrased his comment the way he did.