Stockhausen, Fo, Houellebecq, Ayers

[Mark Harris]

I'm inclined to cut Stockhausen some slack; if he had
just phrased his comments a little differently, it
would have been easier to see what (I think) he was
getting at. Some terrorists *do* conceive of their
actions as (horrible) works of art, and obviously last
Tuesday's actions qualify as a vast and hideously
successful opera of evil. The connection between art
and terror goes way back: anyone more familiar than I
am with the detailed histories of anarchism, futurism,
surrealism, situationism, etcetera, could write
endless essays about this. In fact, I am sure these
*will* be written, with an eye on the new events.

Fo's comments come across, as did Falwell's and
Robertson's (and maybe Chomsky's? - I haven't read his
reactions yet), as an attempt to use the events to
push his political agenda. No matter whose agenda you
agree with, that sort of opportunism is pretty
disgusting. Couldn't they even wait a few weeks? I
guess not. Some public figures really need to learn to
keep their mouths shut sometimes.

The timing of certain articles in last Tuesday's New
York Times Living Arts section is incredibly ironic
now. The Houellebecq profile discussed his rants
against Muslims, and the profile of former Weatherman
Bill Ayers quoted him as saying, roughly, "we didn't
blow up enough". Ayers, also interviewed in the 9/16
New York Times Magazine (prepared before the events),
was quick to back-pedal in a letter to the editor, and
cancelled an author appearance at the Harold
Washington Library in Chicago.

Mark

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/