The Fascination of 9/11: An Unpatriotic Response

Stockhausen claimed that the terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11/01 was the "greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos."  Stockhausen's remark after the September 11th attacks offers an appreciation of the aesthetic powerfulness of an event despite its tragedy and wickedness.  In acknowledging the unimaginable qualities of the image event, Stockhausen puts an aesthetic value on 9/11 that strays away from the controlled 9/11 responses that view the event strictly as a terrorist attack with permanent consequences on our lives.  Stockhausen's reaction suggests that 9/11 was an image event and therefore intentionally performed to be televised and photographed.  To an observer, the photographed aspect of the event also makes it an aesthetic event, especially when considering its grotesqueness.  To analyze the grotesque as a vital aspect of art we must first explore what art is.  According to the aesthetic principles, art is the quality, production, expression or realm that is presented.  The 9/11 attacks, when interpreted aesthetically, produced something fascinating and out of the ordinary realm of thinking.  Stockhausen's remarks suggest that its successful performance (in the sense that it was completed as planned, even without rehearsal), created a visually stunning spectacle that cannot be matched. 

Emmanouil Aretoulakis's article, "Aesthetic Appreciation, Ethics, and 9/11," offers an openness to the aesthetics of 9/11.  He argues that the awe at the spectacle of 9/11 is undeniable; he says, "to insist that the air crash into the WTC, as it was captured on television, was my no means a mind-capturing or fascinating view because so many human lives were terribly lost is probably to miss the point of fascination as an ineffably disinterested act of appreciating beauty."  Fascination is untied to reason, and the acknowledgment of the awe of the event provides a response that is not rooted in American ideology of jingoism and moral values.  Aretoulakis's ideas match Stockhausen's intellectual approach to the event, an approach that is unappreciated and discouraged in a society that promotes patriotism and a national identity in order to gain support for anti-terrorism wars.  Furthermore, in Aretoulakis's discussion of the aesthetics, he argues that although terrorism "should not be seen as a work of art...something could be visually stunning or aesthetically powerful without being considered a work of art."  His comment shows that the power of the event cannot and should not be denied solely because of its atrocities and lack of beauty.

While Stockhausen argues that the attack was aesthetically appealing, music critic Anthony Tommasini claims that a terrorist attack as devastating as 9/11 cannot be considered art without being disrespectful to those who lost their lives.  Tommasini agrees that art is difficult to define; however, whatever art is he claims that "it is a step removed from reality."  This distinction between art and reality prevents Tommasini from valuing the aesthetics, since he is unable to detach the image of the event from the horror behind it.  Tommasini also argues that photography blurs art and reality and claims that the only time to portray real, suffering people is through photojournalism, which "is truth, not art."  Tommasini refuses to acknowledge the aesthetic qualities of 9/11 as worthy of being appreciated on their own, as he comments that "A theatrical depiction of suffering may be art; real suffering is not."  Tommasini therefore argues that something cannot be a powerful aesthetic image because of its association with reality.

Tommasini's clear distinction between art and reality, especially when reality is painful, prevents him from intellectually viewing the 9/11 attacks as anything other than terrorist.  Terrorism, when defined, uses violence for political purposes.  While the actual act of terrorism is horrifying, Aretoulakis argues that there needs to be a separation from the evil aspects of the attack in order to realize its aesthetic value.  He says that the belief that "terrorism is evil and immoral" will inevitably lead to the "misconception that a visual representation of terrorism is evil and immoral too."  Aretoulakis sees danger in failing to see the distinction, for it limits responses to anti-intellectualism and prevents any sort of independent evaluation of the event.  While Tommasini would argue that the event cannot be separated on a political or aesthetic level as anything other than an attack, to think intellectually about the event requires removing it from its moral implication.  According to Stockhausen's view, the art is not in the pain and suffering that people experienced; rather, the event as an image event and separate entity from the suffering is aesthetically attractive.  Tommasini also argues that the value of art is not connected in its moral values because it is a "step removed from reality.  In either argument, there are no moral values in artistic works because the aesthetic components are detached from those affected.

The criticism that Stockhausen received for his comment and the need he felt to excuse the comment indicates how responses to 9/11 have been controlled by the government and the media.  Reactions are encouraged to center around the fight on terror, the inhumanity of the act, and mourning the loss of thousands of lives.  We are expected and trained to accept the rhetoric that September 11th changed our lives forever without taking an intellectual approach to the event.  President Bush's speech on September 20, 2001, favored the clear-cut attitude toward the event.  He established two opposing sides and left no room for intellectualism when he said, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."  The expected response to the attacks is to be that of choosing America's side; offering any other reaction is the equivalent of choosing the terrorist's side.  Through hegemony, the dominant ideology of the country suppresses intellectualism and encourages sentimentalism in hopes of easily justifying the war on terror.  The insistence on such responses seamlessly subjugates people into the dominant ideology.  People obtain the ideology that America was tormented by these terrorists and needs to reciprocate in order to protect the memory of those that suffered and the security of the state.  Tommasini's argument against Stockhausen's comment is a direct example of how it has become a natural ideological commitment to support the American ideal, meaning that we must protect the idea that it was a horrific incident and be patriotic rather than comment in any intellectual way.  Stockhausen was sanctioned for commenting on the aesthetic components of the attack.  Beyond our ideological interpretation of what we should believe about 9/11, putting the tragic aspects of the event aside, the spectacle itself, according to Aretoulakis's argument, allures and intrigues the viewer because of its mind-boggling qualities.  The idea behind this perspective is that something can be beautiful, powerful, inspiring, and engaging on its own without considering the aftermath of the event or other implications.  The hegemony of the American ideology hinders our willingness and ability to see the event as anything other than an attack.