Re: Stockhausen, R.I.P.

[Daryl Shawn <highhorse@mhorse.com>]

Well, no question he didn't endear himself to anyone with his comments. 
However, other than referring to "Lucifer" as the spirit of rebellion 
and anarchy (which is positive in my book :-D ), Stockhausen says he's a 
destructor, who does not know love. To me it doesn't seem as if he's 
praising the act itself, at all. If he'd have simply said "it was a work 
of art by the Devil himself", or "it was the ultimate masterpiece of 
destruction", I think it'd be accepted that the sentiment is that it was 
an evil act.

BTW, my personal definition of art is wide-ranging, and I accept 
anything that involves creation with the intent of generating an 
aesthetic reaction - a terrorist attack doesn't fall under this 
guideline. I just think here that if someone as fearless as Sr. 
Karlheinz actually admired the act, he'd have stood behind the simple 
misquote of his words, or said something like "well, it certainly was a 
brilliant plan" or something similar (and similarly offensive).

Daryl Shawn
www.swanwelder.com
www.chinapaintingmusic.com


> In general, invoking "Lucifer" in a positive sense does not further
> endear yourself to the sort of audience that doesn't see terrorist
> acts as a form of art.
>