| Original Message |
Jenna Hanlon (no login)
Posted Mar 6, 2007 4:37 AM
I believe Lauren makes an extremely valid point, one that I often find myself forgetting when discussing theory with everyone in class and reading the complex hypothesis’ of the various authors we've read so far. She called attention back to the extreme evil of that day and away from the discussion of whether or not it can be percieved in a varient perspective (specifically that of art). It may be that I am unable to dwell any longer on the overwhelming loss of life, finding no solace or answers with no questions asked, so I am quick to write the tragedy off as the past and focus on the future because that is easier for me to deal with, personally.
When paralleling my interests in literary theory and mass media, with that of my basic, natural empathy, sheer morality…I admit, sometimes my assessment of the events, and the ripple effects that followed come off as cold, and unsympathetic to the loss of American lives in a most horrific way; and although I do believe that the 9/11 attacks spawned evil and terror in an almost unimaginable way, and should be condemned forever to hell as one of the many ultimate “disregards for human life” I think there’s a story to be told beyond my feelings, beyond anyone’s feelings or emotional attachments to that day in history. September 11th in 5 short years has already shown that the attacks on our country changed the course of our world, rewrote the rules of war fare and violently altered the human condition in a deep and profound way. But, (and here is where I disagree with Lauren’s exertion) if I were to discuss the “dark beauty” of a September 11th memorial photo montage on one of the million website memorials online, and engage its artistic implications (ie: tone, mood, message, editing, technique and device), I do not necessarily believe that this disregards the severity of the event or its horrible offense against innocent life, nor does it alter my personal feelings toward it. An event of this magnitude is beyond the individual, whether directly involved or not, and while we can choose to not have discussions concerning the artistic value, (or any sort of objective truth for that matter) of planes colliding into skyscrapers, what are we achieving by this censure? I do agree that on the small scale, the performance artist would never be revered for opening fire on random passerbys but this event was/is larger than life and beyond immediate comprehension (so we see in United 93); and I say ‘is’ because it is still happening, some long term effects are just being realized as the saga continues to unfold daily (ie World War III).
I call for a dialogue of every angel: art, architecture, politics, economics, religion… begin the discussions now, hack out the truths that lay shrouded in the disturbing wake of that day; let us not wait until every one of us who experienced it is dead and risk 9/11’s causes/effects to get lost in translation when determined by our legacies.
My belief that the loss of life on that day was evil, cowardly, terrorist extremist bullshit, that belief won’t stop me from exploring the event from different perspectives. Just because I explore those different perspectives, doesn’t mean I am unaffected personally by the horror, devastation and unimaginable tragedies of September the 11th.
I think its dangerous to be unaware of ideas and truths of other people (ie: extremists of every creed); since we all experienced it, "the world is flat" as they say, and all of us have 'seperate but equal' understandings of the event. To disagree with a perspective is one thing, to denouce it's value is narrow and in my opinion, an easy way out for something that is difficult to deal with (the idea of art within death and destruction).
For now the truth is a work in progress...
|
|
|