Classical Music Forum banner

Stockhousen's Horrific comments about 9/11

40K views 259 replies 43 participants last post by  Kieran 
#1 · (Edited)
I must admit that I had no clue about these shocking comments up until I purchased a book 2 weeks ago on Amazon called 'The Home We Build Together' written by the former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jonathan Sacks. I purchased the book after hearing England's PM David Cameron praising it, and that ignited my curiosity. Anyways the book is a deep and awesome work of Philosophy. In the book by way of making a point, Lord Sacks brought down a quote by the German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, and it reads as follows:

"Well, what happened there is, of course-now all of you must adjust your brains-the biggest work of art there has ever been. The fact that spirits achieve with one act something which we in music could never dream of, that people practise ten years madly, fanatically for a concert. And then die. [Hesitantly.] And that is the greatest work of art that exists for the whole Cosmos. Just imagine what happened there. There are people who are so concentrated on this single performance, and then five thousand people are driven to Resurrection. In one moment. I couldn't do that. Compared to that, we are nothing, as composers. [...] It is a crime, you know of course, because the people did not agree to it. They did not come to the "concert". That is obvious. And nobody had told them: "You could be killed in the process." Stockhausen 2002, 76-77

I have read these comments as they were quoted by Lord Sacks, and I found them to be extremely offensive, vulgar and abhorrent.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Oh god not this again.

This quote has been dragged out again and again by people with a grudge against Stockhausen and his music.

I don't see what's so offensive. He's not condoning the action in any sense. I don't know what drove him to say it but it's no wackier than other things he's said. It's over ten years old and he's been dead for over five years. What's the point?
 
#6 ·
Stockausen's comments don't bother me. Even more controversial at the time was Ward Churchill's "little Eichmans" remark, referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center. From Wiki: "Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled 'Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens' about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the 'technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire' in the World Trade Center as 'little Eichmanns,' i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil."

Needless to say, this was controversial and Ward was fired. Not for his views, of course, nossir, not a bit!
 
#29 ·
Stockausen's comments don't bother me. Even more controversial at the time was Ward Churchill's "little Eichmans" remark, referring to the people who worked in the World Trade Center. From Wiki: "Ward Churchill, former ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote an essay in September 2001 titled 'Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens' about the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks. He described what he called the 'technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire' in the World Trade Center as 'little Eichmanns,' i.e. as those who banally conduct their duties in the service of evil."

Needless to say, this was controversial and Ward was fired. Not for his views, of course, nossir, not a bit!
This part is simply true, the other things that he say are despicable but Al Qaeda attacked the USA as a reaction the sponsoring of secular dictators in the middle east. I'm not defending their actions in any way but it's important to know why people do things.

This fact makes it also very clear why invading Iraq to combat terrorism is just ridiculous. Saddam Hussein was one of the those Dictators that Al Qaeda wanted to defeat. I'll say it again: terrorism is despicable but it's important to know why people do things.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Stockhausen's comments are certainly interesting, what seems to be assumed is that he is talking positively of the event. Think about it from the point of view that the evilness of 9/11 was in one sense great, but great meaning "extent, amount or intensity considerably above normal," not great meaning "good."

It was a huge event that will be marked permanently in the history of the human race and its significance could not be comapared to something huge in the world of art. One must also keep in mind that a performance of a work by Stockhausen is also something of a "huge event," (a lot of his music needs very specific requirements such as a park on a moonlit night, often a piece might last for more than 2 hours, there would need to be a lot of rehearsal time and preparation) but a good "huge event," not an evil one. Perhaps he was shocked by great evil of 9/11. Of course he would think that something equally huge could not be possible in the classical music world.
 
#10 · (Edited)
He said that it was a crime because 'the people didnt agree to it', meaning that according to him, if 3000 people decided to come together and willingly let others bomb them to pieces, that would be an act of 'great art' by him. Everything he said is shocking, and horrific, there is no justification to any of it. Let me put it this way, I will not accept any rationalization or any attempt to sweep his comments under the carpet. When one equates mass murder to art, then he needs to be imprisoned cause his brain is sick and a person like that can be dangerous. Its not us that need brain adjustment, humanity doesnt need to adjust to his deplorable diatribe, it is he who needs brain adjustment and seek help, very fast. Well since he is already departed, that would be of no use. I think that people who are mature and can see things clearly, would instantly confess that his comments are horrible. Vast majority of people will consider his comments horrible, but there are always a few who will tolerate anything, that's not a surprise, you'll find all sorts of people agreeing and rationalizing every evil thing under the sun, they will always find a reason to justify just about anything. That's their choice, but from a universal stand point, what matters is that the overwhelming vast majority of people reading this will know rite away that his comments were offensive and despicable.

I don't have anything to add to this.
 
#9 ·
The comments are horrific because they are for the most part true. The terrorists were meaning to produce a spectacle, to make people notice and they did. They murdered thousands in the most publicly visible way possible, and like it or not, the pictures of the attack are now iconic.

It reflects poorly on Stockhausen perhaps but only as far as his willingness to say uncomfortable things about terrorism and the nature of art.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Quite true. And the funny thing is that this horrified people don't have any problem when they watch, like if it were a movie, the constant repetion of the videos of the attack, repeated ad nauseam in the news channels.
They don't even notice that they are actually consuming the spectacle.
 
#14 ·
Perhaps you think that people who agree with Stockhausen, or at least do not outright condemn him for exercising his right to free speech, should also be imprisoned and treated for their brain sickness. Do you believe my comment warrants re-education?

Do you really think that comparing the attacks to art is really worse than for instance claiming that it was an inside job by the US government. To my (perhaps sick) mind the people creating a vast conspiracy by Bush and the CIA to murder their own civilians to further foreign policies is a more offensive remark than anything Stockhausen said.
 
#16 ·
Of course not, if someone misunderstands his comments, that's his rite, and he can even express it. There are many people who misunderstand anything and try to rationalize many terrible comments, because they either like the individual for whatever reason, and refuse to accept the fact that his comments are terrible. They are not just as guilty as the one who made the original comments.

As to conspiracy theories, yes those theories are just as terrible as Stockhousen's comments. When people are faced with clear cut realities and they refuse to accept reality, this is a major problem indeed. But lets not forget that the ones that actually committed the crimes are the actual criminals. And the few who try to invent conspiracy theories, are exercising free speech.
Even though I strongly reject their comments, they are not breaking any laws so, they have a rite to freedom of speech. But if their freedom of speech gains momentum and becomes actual policy, then that's a dangerous thing, and it should be stopped.
 
#20 ·
Hm--didn't this professor hear what happened to Ward Churchill?

Incidentally, I see that Churchill was awarded $1M for wrongful dismissal, only to have the award taken from him by a series of courts after the fact. Something tells me this hasn't mellowed him out any.

I feel there may be a moral about trolling here, but I'm too tired to think of one. Probably a stretch, anyways. Not sure why I mentioned it, in fact.
 
#18 ·
Before the press conference was over, Stockhausen had already distanced himself from these comments, a spokeswoman for the Hamburg Music Festival said. On Tuesday, the composer formally apologized for his remarks, explaining that he simply wanted to remind people of the role of destruction in art. Stockhausen asked the forgiveness of anyone who felt hurt by what he said at the press conference.
He's dead and he apologised! What more do you want from the guy? :eek:
 
#19 ·
I hope that his apology was genuine and that he changed his twisted way of looking at things.
Now I want to ask you the meaning of 'role of destruction in art'...

If he distanced himself from what he said that the terrorists attack was the greatest work of art, then how can he come and say that he wanted to remind people of the role of destruction in art, if he doesnt consider it a work of art anymore?

I don't see any regret on his part from his initial point that he considered it art, otherwise why claim that he wanted to 'remind people of the role of destruction in art'?
 
#21 ·
The role of destruction in art: I posted a link up there to an article that discussed the historical context of Stockhausen's claim.

As for Stockhausen's apology, I can't see what was in his mind at the time. Maybe he still believed what he said about terrorism-as-art but he realised that expressing such thoughts was insensitive. Maybe he was completely insincere in his asking for forgiveness.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Of all the ways one might want to defend Stockhausen (and just to register my own opinion: I don't), the one I find least persuasive is the claim that other people have said other things that are far worse. If I'm arrested for stealing a car, it's not a plausible defense for me to say the guy across the street stole an even more valuable car.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Stockhausen said a lot of really odd or just plain stupid things, and this is part of that. But it's not as offensive as you're making it out to be. He never once meant to imply that 9/11 was a good event at all, in any way. It was, in the oldest sense of the word, a terrible event. In the original quote, he called it a work of Lucifer.

On the other hand, it is an insensitive remark. I don't think it's really enlightening, either, although CoAG's description of the performance element in Stockhausen's music is dead-on. Would it be better if he had not said it? Probably.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Stockhausen said a lot of really odd or just plain stupid things, and this is part of that. But it's not as offensive as you're making it out to be. He never once meant to imply that 9/11 was a good event at all, in any way. It was, in the oldest sense of the world, a terrible event. In the original quote, he called it a work of Lucifer.

On the other hand, it is an insensitive remark. I don't think it's really enlightening, either, although CoAG's description of the performance element in Stockhausen's music is dead-on. Would it be better if he had not said it? Probably.
As quack said, yes, maybe it talks about the willingness of Stockhausen to say these things.
The real question is if after such a tragedy is morally acceptable to make those artistic interpretations, even if they are "correct" from the technical point of view.
Stockhausen's interpretation was interesting to me because I felt disgusted with the mass media coverage, "as if it were a movie".
But, yes, I think one must be half crazy to actually say it in public. Certainly there's a quote of insensitivity from his part.
I don't think it was necessary to express it in public. Maybe in private yes.
 
#27 ·
He's not stating his political opinion on 9/11, or his views on murder in general. Some people just can't avoid being one-dimensional on 'taboo' subjects like these. Hence the 'brain adjustment', but I wouldn't expect that from any chief rabbi. He's just showing it for what it is - the most fascinating recorded event in history. It doesn't mean that it isn't a horrible tragedy and that those people deserved to die. But some people are not afraid of talking about these uncomfortable truths that most prefer not to talk about, comedians are very good at this, too bad he's not a comedian I guess. But the fact remains that it was shocking, and then you watch it over and over again. I do hope his apology wasn't genuine and only made for PR.
 
#40 ·
Just a friendly reminder: This forum is for discussions of politics and religion in Classical Music. It is not for discussions of politics or religion not having anything to do with classical music. Just because the thread referenced Stockhausen doesn't mean that future posts here can veer completely off any musical topic and get into the same type of problems that caused us to clamp down on general political and religious posts. Please discuss these ideas in reference to Stockhausen, music, or art.
 
#41 ·
Some of what Stockhausen says is true. 9/11 was an incredible spectacle as planned, and it was a crime. I have 2 major issues with his comments.

As others have suggested, his comments were extremely insensitive and did not need to be publicly stated.

The 9/11 attack was in no way art. Art is created by artists who express an artistic message. 9/11 was a political message or action. If one suggested to those who planned and carried out 9/11 that their actions were art, they would probably have simply not understood the comment. They would be mystified by the suggestion.
 
G
#42 ·
Stockhausen claiming that 9/11 was art essentially destroys all meaning for what art is. Following his logic, must we also accept that the Holocaust was art? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I don't understand the desire by some to so broadly define art to the point that there no longer is a point in calling anything art. In virtually every other endeavor, there are relatively hard and fast definitions that establish the boundaries of what is and is not a thing. I cannot place a brick on the ground and declare it a building and name myself an architect. I cannot write random letters on a piece of paper and declare it a novel and myself an author. Yet some would look at that brick and call it art, or look at the scribblings on the paper and call it art. When everything is art, then nothing is art, for what use is the word when it defines nothing specifically?

I don't claim to know the mind of Stockhausen - why he would call 9/11 art. Did he truly believe it? Was he trying to be provocative? Was he searching for some relevance? Some attention? Who knows. But I can say that in this instance he was definitely absurd. And I also know that his opinion in this matter is probably going to have about as much impact on the world at large as his "music" - a small academic community will debate its relevance, while the rest of the world will live and die not caring in the least, even if they knew who he was.
 
#44 · (Edited)
Stockhausen claiming that 9/11 was art essentially destroys all meaning for what art is. Following his logic, must we also accept that the Holocaust was art? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I don't see how those examples follow his logic.
The 9/11 attacks were a one-off event with huge symbolic intent - arguably the symbolism was the driving factor, because did any of the terrorists honestly think the attacks would resolve all their grievances with America? Whereas the Holocaust was plain old-fashioned genocide, and the atomic bombings were a display of military force with a specific military goal.
Stockhausen didn't claim that "everything is art" - he was talking about this one specific thing. I disagree that it was art too. Maybe if he'd described it as a publicity stunt we could all rest easy.
 
G
#45 ·
Fine, then by his logic, Timothy McVeigh was an artist, as were the Klebold and Harris when they shot up Columbine, and as is every lunatic who has strapped a bomb to himself to blow up a bus, or a nightclub, or a roadside checkpoint. In Stockhausen's mind, if we are to take him literally, any mass murderer is an artist and his crime is art if he intends for there to be symbolic intent. I realize that you don't agree that it is art, but if we accept that he thought it was art, can you conceivably picture where he would have drawn the line? So long as there is symbolic intent seems like a pretty broad definition, and could conceivably encompass everything. Had Hitler done his mass killing in broad daylight for everybody to see - say, broadcasting the gassing of innocents over airwaves so that people could hear their death screams - and meant it as symbolic intent for any who would dare thwart his goals - conceivably Stockhausen would have called it art.

Either way, the way that he stretched the boundaries of art to include the actions of terrorists on 9/11 DOES destroy what is truly art. People are constantly clamoring that governments don't do enough to promote the arts or fund the arts. Try selling that to the public when the "arts" include flying jetliners into buildings, killing thousands.
 
#47 · (Edited)
Either way, the way that he stretched the boundaries of art to include the actions of terrorists on 9/11 DOES destroy what is truly art. People are constantly clamoring that governments don't do enough to promote the arts or fund the arts. Try selling that to the public when the "arts" include flying jetliners into buildings, killing thousands.
So you sympathize with public funding of art and want to remove any tasteless associations?
 
G
#46 ·
Art HAS to mean something, and in the past it included things that advanced us as a people and spoke to our better natures, and represented the heights to which mankind could soar. It was the output of minds striving for better. Once it was represented by a Mona Lisa, a statue of David, a Starry Night, Water Lilies, the St. Matthew Passion, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, the list could go on and on.

Now it can also mean sitting in a concert hall watching performers sit silently for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, or immersing a crucifix in a jar of urine, or, if Stockhausen is to be believed, flying jetliners into buildings or crashing them into fields.

The former examples inspire awe in those who witness them and speak to just how great humanity can be. The latter, at best, leave us no better than we were before, or leave us worse. The former enriches us, the latter debases us. And I am to believe that both are considered "art?"
 
#52 ·
This, cited in the "9-11 as a Work of Art" article mentioned earlier, is an interview where a US General called the Invasion of Iraq "a work of art". http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/03/usa.iraq

Just because someone calls something art doesn't make it true, even if it is a professional artist like Stockhausen. The art world hasn't collapsed since he said it as art no longer has any meaning. I'm sure you are aware of one of the most famous books of military tactics, Sun Tzu's Art of War. All sorts of things are called art, which is why "what is art?" is a perennial question, but only a core group of works in similar medium are regularly agreed upon by a majority as being art. I am sure the WTC was once called art, the Manhattan skyline certainly has been, Charles C. Ebbets' photo of construction workers on a skyscraper is regarded as art, so why not 9/11. For the record I wouldn't call 9/11 art, but I understand Stockhausen's comparison.

The former examples inspire awe...
Iraqi 'Shock and Awe'

Atmosphere Light Sky Building Vegetation
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top