Hey everyone, I made a video essay discussing Death Squad's infamous 1999 "gun performance" titled "Intent". I'm sure many of you have heard about it but I thought I would give my take and go a bit more in depth researching it. I'd love to start a conversation about it.
https://youtu.be/yaaF3HEpF44
I also made another video essay a while back discussing the aesthetics, themes, and packaging of noise music that would likely be of interest to most people here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otHxoKEkYB8
I enjoyed the noise video, as an overview of the genre and aesthetics etc. I don't wish to be negative but if I could make a couple of positive points. There is in the origins of noise a link with fine art. The Rita and Merzbow being obvious examples. And of course Throbbing Gristle originated at the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts), and prior to TG GPO was involved with fluxus. (in turn from Dada, fluxus who Yoko Ono (W. Bennett's cited influence) & La Monte Young et al. were associated) As for academic background Vomir, (Romain Perrot ) collaborates with Paul Hegarty – author of Noise / Music* so the rabbit hole does go deep. The current use of cassette and badly Xeroxed images is also interesting, I think it is a style inherited from a need. Early pre CDR / MP3 - manufacture and printing was prohibitively expensive.
* a tour de force of academic name dropping. There was in the early 2000s a fairly keen academic interest in Noise...
Anyway good luck with all your endeavours...
P.S. In no way is any 'academic' criteria a necessity of Noise - "Aesthetics is for the artist as Ornithology is for the birds."—Barnett Newman
OK you asked for comments re the Death Squad video essay in the video. From memory and I couldn't locate this there was an instance back in the 30s ? of a lecture on Dada in the USA where the lecturer whose name I forget threatened the audience with a loaded gun. But famously or infamously 911 generated this from Karlheinz Stockhausen (http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Karlheinz_Stockhausen_on_9/11)
re 911 Quote Stockhausen "What happened there, is – now you must all reset your brain – the greatest artwork ever. That spirits accomplish in one act something that in music we could not dream of; that people rehearse like crazy for ten years, totally fanatically for one concert and then die. That is the greatest artwork for the whole cosmos. Imagine what has happened there. People who are so completely focussed on one performance, and then 5000 people are chased into resurrection, in one moment. I would not be able to that. In comparison, we as composers are nothing. Imagine that I could now create an artwork and all of you would not only be amazed, but you would drop down on the spot, you would be dead and reborn, because it is simply too insane. That is what many artists also try to do, to go beyond the limit of what is thinkable and possible, so that we wake up, so that we open ourselves for another world."
He subsequently 'back pedalled' from this extreme statement..
Interestingly, I hadn't noted – the DIAS movement, The Destruction in Art Symposium (DIAS) was a gathering of a diverse group of international artists, poets, and scientists to London, from 9–11 September 1966. Coincidence?
And Key member Metzger,-"Guitarist Pete Townshend from The Who studied with Metzger, and during the 1960s, Metzger's work was projected on screens at The Who concerts.|"
And of course this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helter_Skelter_(scenario)
I also recall "Dreamspace V, designed by Maurice Agis " which accidentally killed two people and injured 13 others.
As to my opinion on Death Squad and the above being Art, I don't think so. Like William Bennett has said in interview – to go out to shock was his intention. Well terrorists do precisely this, often at the cost of their own lives, so should be considered also as artists. IMO the fundamental mistake is (maybe was) that some Avant Garde art was originally found to be shocking, famously The Right of Spring. Bennett – and others reverse this process, to 'if it shocks its avant garde'. Which IMO is (was) not the case. There is an Art of War but war isn't art, here I agree with Adorno that in fact certain acts can deny the possibility of Art. Though it is true that post-modern art has been termed to be now about (mere) sensation this might now be the case that acts of terror are now art.
Nice work, Aether. Well presented, edited and recorded, good variety of secondary research and interesting discussion points. Some primary research (i.e. contacting Michael) could have made your Intent video even better, something to potentially consider for future essay videos?
Your earlier noise aesthetics video was more limited in scope and I can agree with some of JLIAT's earlier points about fine art influences (although avant-garde art history is definitely not the be-all-and-end-all for influencing noise/industrial) but it's a good start - why not make it a longer series and focus on one aesthetic/style/label for each video? Just don't get too bogged down in the theory side of things, it'll suck the joy out of it for both yourself and your viewers. Be imaginative.
I'm seeing a number of content creators releasing YouTube videos about noise/industrial (be it essays or reviews) and it's good to know that younger people like yourself are indulging your interests in an accessible way on these platforms for both newcomers and long time listeners. Keep it up! Maybe get in touch with ThisMachineKillsMusic (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_GMlQGxJEOhtSB5kWuFKkQ) and Alpha - 27 (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHTbTDtqLarvm62J83beZQA) too if you haven't already? Or even get in touch with older record collectors on YouTube like dereckvon (https://www.youtube.com/user/dereckvon), or even Noisextra? I'm sure if you ask around on forums like this one, Instagram and Facebook, you'll be able to gather further contact information, photos/videos/correct info of specific releases and more knowledge that's what just available from a Google search or Discogs trawl too.
Thanks for the feedback, JLIAT and theotherjohn! That Stockhausen quote is really interesting, and I appreciate your take on the art of terrorism and such. I'm still trying to form my own opinion on all of that. And yes I'm big fans of ThisMachineKillsMusic and Alpha-27, and it's definitely a good idea to try and reach out to people like that for collaborations. If anyone has any specific ideas on future video essay topics I would appreciate suggestions!
Thank you for making this video! A unique way to contribute to the culture surrounding noise.
You asked for opinions, mine is that I can think of no more clear or articulate way for mk9 to express the ideas behind the piece. As far as my personal and entirely subjective taste, I think it's manbaby edgelord shit and I would've left too. But I can't possibly argue that his performance was a failure.
First let me start with the due thanks for the OP. Good stuff, well presented. I never got to witness Intent in its full glory, but I did get to see the man in action twice before that, the latter presentation of which managed to disturb a different woman in the audience- who later confessed her unease with performances of the self-harming persuasion. (I comment on this a bit more below.)
BUT! The first thing that struck me was a latter part of the pictured text from "the woman on Yahoo". It's not quoted in the video essay, but reads-
QuoteHis next performance is happening in San Francisco where he is supposedly going to do some type of "hostage situation". There is no telling what he will do.
This reads to me strangely like rather effective PR. See-
https://youtu.be/yaaF3HEpF44?t=411
I'd also like to take some exception, as I'm apt, to the suggestions of some that this is "just" aimed at shocking the audience. I'd at least be interested in the said suggester's take on Artaud and the Theater Of Cruelty- which I believe to have been a key inspiration for Death Squad (but don't quote me on that). With Artaud there was the aim to shock, but with what I would describe as keenly artistic ends.
I'm repeating myself now from previous topics along these lines, but. Regardless of how one feels about a given performance, and perhaps equally to disregard the intentions of the performer, from my way of seeing it-
When the performance leaves me blanking on how to appropriately respond-
eg, do I laugh, cry, stroke the chin?- at that precise moment, at the moment that my internalized script on how I am supposed deal with it shuts down, the performance most emphatically succeeds- as art.
But perhaps, per Ligotti, a certain style is to be desired-
QuoteReal life misery is a mess or a bore or simply too heartbreaking to tolerate. And there's no coherence to it — no vision. As Mark Twain said, "Life is just one damn thing after another." I don't want to be a spectator to this any more than I must be. I want to attend to the words of someone who will stand up and say, "Life is just one damn thing after another," not some grinning idiot who presents this fact as a kind of pornography because corporate knows they can use this kind of stuff to sell advertising minutes. Everyone knows that this is the case. Everyone knows that this is an abomination. Everyone is, more or less, a scumbag. As for Mark Twain, forget Huckleberry Finn and read Letters from the Earth.
Quote from: Bloated Slutbag on August 08, 2020, 12:50:02 PM
I'd also like to take some exception, as I'm apt, to the suggestions of some that this is "just" aimed at shocking the audience. I'd at least be interested in the said suggester's take on Artaud and the Theater Of Cruelty- which I believe to have been a key inspiration for Death Squad (but don't quote me on that). With Artaud there was the aim to shock, but with what I would describe as keenly artistic ends.
I think Artaud's intentions in part was to engage in a new type of theatre, a break from a 'tradition' – and as such a critique of the establishment. Something in common with Dada. But that was over 90 years ago, and I think such theatre can be no longer shocking in that way, and has been assimilated by the establishment, unless it succeed and we now have something different. So i'd say to be inspired by a movement in theatre from 90 years ago is not the same as the theatre of 90 years ago.
Secondly its been pointed out that theatre is different from life, and works as 'art' contrary to 'real life'. Such that one might feel fear, and yet know it was not 'real', but actors acting. We can be shocked by a brutal murder on stage, but do not rush out for help or dial 911. Its how amusement rides are supposed to work, they are supposed to be safe, but still thrill. Pointing a loaded gun at someone is not the same, no skill is required in creating the strong emotions. Which is why a performance, even a movie can create strong emotions when well crafted, and a poor one not. Its why a good actor can say convince you of real evil... when you might not believe in such.
So shocking audiences is hardly new, and doing so by using live ammunition is generally not considered as art. Unless you consider bombing people a valid art practice? (The Picasso reply to the German officer in WW2.)
And that relates to your notion of art, and your definition of 'performance'. In art the term normally relates to 'acting'. And for many not all art generates a confusion, though maybe for some?
But in that case it seems once the confusion is resolved the 'art' disappears, and for me a least that's not the case. I can enjoy, respond to etc the same artwork over and over.
Quote from: JLIAT on August 09, 2020, 02:39:14 PM
I think Artaud's intentions in part was to engage in a new type of theatre, a break from a 'tradition' – and as such a critique of the establishment. Something in common with Dada. But that was over 90 years ago, and I think such theatre can be no longer shocking in that way
Oh, I completely agree. The next time some random dude holds a loaded gun to my head whilst screaming unintelligably in the middle of their noise set, the first thing going through my mind will be,
Yawn, been there done that.
Quote from: JLIAT on August 09, 2020, 02:39:14 PM
I think Artaud's intentions in part was to engage in a new type of theatre, a break from a 'tradition' – and as such a critique of the establishment. Something in common with Dada. But that was over 90 years ago, and I think such theatre can be no longer shocking in that way, and has been assimilated by the establishment, unless it succeed and we now have something different. So i'd say to be inspired by a movement in theatre from 90 years ago is not the same as the theatre of 90 years ago.
I'd agree. But I'd also say that regardless of the number of intervening years, the jury is still out. It was out then and it's out now. If someone is of the view that they've figured it all out, good for them. For me, it is as unresolved now as it was then.
I liked that video and am thrilled to have watched it, as I never bothered Youtubing it, didn't know it was there. I came to MK9 and Death Squad very late and reading about him made me get a ton of stuff off him and just watching this has made me want to catch up on collecting. I know he heard he toured with Con-Dom once and see this level of performance as a step up from what Con-Dom did, or at least a very strong on parr parallel. I think direct confrontation with audiences, makes it more than a noise/visuals performance and takes it somewhere else. In a recent zine score I got a manefesto booklet of MK9, which I want to read up on and do believe it is art, as performance art makes people think and it has extra context through events such as Columbine that happened near the time. His work also had huge background content to reinforce it. I have missed out on seeing MK9 twice (1. Cancelled show as people were upset that ACL was supporting. 2. Car broke down.) so his work retains its mystery. I am going to swot up on MK9 with all the stuff I haveas it has been a while. Thanks for posting that.
Quote from: Bloated Slutbag on August 10, 2020, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: JLIAT on August 09, 2020, 02:39:14 PM
I think Artaud's intentions in part was to engage in a new type of theatre, a break from a 'tradition' – and as such a critique of the establishment. Something in common with Dada. But that was over 90 years ago, and I think such theatre can be no longer shocking in that way
Oh, I completely agree. The next time some random dude holds a loaded gun to my head whilst screaming unintelligably in the middle of their noise set, the first thing going through my mind will be, Yawn, been there done that.
Well at least by your definition it wont be art.
If only artists learnt from the past
and changed, how many times must a dictator attempt to invade Russia...and fail.
Remind me to curtail the sarcasm when posting to online discussion forums. To say Artaud was about critiquing the establishment, well yes, but hardly just. On the Theater Of Cruelty. Cruelty in the context seems to represent life in general. "Evil is permanent." Creation and life are defined by a fundamental cruelty. "Effort is a cruelty, existence through effort is a cruelty."
So where for some this may read as a pretty innocuous statement of artistic intent-
QuoteWe want to make out of the theater a believable reality which gives the heart and senses that kind of concrete bite which all true sensation requires.
I read with Artaud this to be meant literally. The loaded gun to the head would be one sure-fire means the end. But to be more specific, I was also reading this in the context of the vaguely PR-esque "woman on yahoo", without which the "believable reality" of the performance- as represented here, after the fact- might well be diminished.
Quote from: JLIAT on August 09, 2020, 02:39:14 PM
once the confusion is resolved the 'art' disappears, and for me a least that's not the case. I can enjoy, respond to etc the same artwork over and over.
This can certainly be true for some kinds of artwork but perhaps not all. Perhaps with movies for example there may come a point where the images become overly familiar. And some kinds of live performance, the more theatrical presentations in general. But again, more specifically: When the "concrete bite" seems not only possible but probable it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to say how I would enjoy or respond each time.
As a kind of Special Interests-esque aside, Artaud was clearly well vested in the sonic-sensual component of the theatrical performance. One choice quotation-
QuoteResearch is also required, apart from music, into instruments and appliances which, based on special combinations or new alloys of metal, can attain a new range and compass, producing sounds or noises that are unbearably piercing.
I kinda think he'd dig Death Squad.
I think using a real loaded gun to provoke fear is just that, and not 'theatre'. If it is then the attacks @ The Eagles of Death Metal concert in Paris should be considered a 'better' work than Death Squad. He didn't actually kill anyone – but given the idea of causing violent emotions its the next logical step, and we don't know the possible trauma he caused to his audience or IMO victims. And of course water boarding only gives the impression of drowning so is actually less threatening than the use of a real loaded gun. CIA Central Intelligence Artists. And as I said above 911 would be a major work in this 'genre'.
So if the intentions of Artaud was to cause sensation by actual threats as part of some critique, as is Death Squad, how are they different to any terrorist group, or any state which employs fear to some aim?
Quote from: JLIAT on August 17, 2020, 08:38:34 PM
So if the intentions of Artaud was to cause sensation by actual threats as part of some critique, as is Death Squad, how are they different to any terrorist group, or any state which employs fear to some aim?
Ways, means, result. Terrorists KILL. The artist may hurt your ... feelings or scare you. It's not the same, is it ? Not with killing, not with torture. - If an artist comes to me with a gun i am -almost- sure he is not going to shoot me. Cause i havent ever heard an artist to kill the audience as part of his performance. - On the other hand if i listen allah akbar and see an unknown holding a gun, well, i wont stay standing still.
It's like you to make equal a threat, a 'performance' , a thought with the actual action itself.
Quote from: Theodore on August 18, 2020, 12:14:21 AM
Quote from: JLIAT on August 17, 2020, 08:38:34 PM
So if the intentions of Artaud was to cause sensation by actual threats as part of some critique, as is Death Squad, how are they different to any terrorist group, or any state which employs fear to some aim?
Ways, means, result. Terrorists KILL.
Not all, high-jackers can merely seek publicity, freeing hostages. The killing and suicide attacks are a more recent development. The aim is publicity, which IMO is similar to those who use shock tactics in what they think is art. When the CIA et al torture they seek not to kill, merely create that illusion in order to gain information. So if Death Squad had no intention to kill, merely create that illusion, again what difference is there?
Quote from: Theodore on August 18, 2020, 12:14:21 AM
The artist may hurt your ... feelings or scare you. It's not the same, is it ? Not with killing, not with torture. - If an artist comes to me with a gun i am -almost- sure he is not going to shoot me.
If you were sure the artist's aim was just to shock and not kill the intent would fail. Hence the artwork would fail. And Death Squad if he takes his idea from Bennett is interesting. In an interview Bennett says his aim was to shock, but it became difficult as audiences got to know what to expect, so he sort out new audiences who did not. I don't know how true this is, and i've said before I think the mistake is that because some avant garde art shocked audiences – shocking audiences is avant garde. Its not. You can take candy from little children, and cause upset, or expose yourself in public. It should be obvious that to shock you can simply advocate what your audience would find shocking. Only care needs to be taken not to go too far. The Chapman's early work used paedophilia themes, now hard to find. As for feelings being hurt rather than killing, in some cases it could be considered not the same, less or worse. What if the 'artwork' is so shocking it causes a permanent mental condition. Zarathustra consoles the dying tight rope walker with the idea that death is an end. The great 'artworks' of religion need the prospect of immortality to shock and scare.
Quote from: Theodore on August 18, 2020, 12:14:21 AM
Cause i havent ever heard an artist to kill the audience as part of his performance. -
yet? I would suspect there might be cases.*
Quote from: Theodore on August 18, 2020, 12:14:21 AM
On the other hand if i listen allah akbar and see an unknown holding a gun, well, i wont stay standing still.
It's like you to make equal a threat, a 'performance' , a thought with the actual action itself.
No – its not me, its Death Squad. If those in the audience didn't think it was equal, they would have not run for their lives. Again, as I said, in theatre the aim is to cause emotion in an audience that knows the performance isn't real. They do not run, but sit and get some pleasure from experiencing powerful emotions in relative safety. Thus the term 'Art'.
*This. "The Sorrows of Young Werther turned Goethe, previously an unknown author, into a literary celebrity almost overnight. Napoleon Bonaparte considered it one of the great works of European literature, having written a Goethe-inspired soliloquy in his youth and carried Werther with him on his campaigning to Egypt. It also started the phenomenon known as the "Werther Fever", which caused young men throughout Europe to dress in the clothing style described for Werther in the novel. Items of merchandising such as prints, decorated Meissen porcelain and even a perfume were produced.
The book reputedly also led to some of the first known examples of copycat suicide. The men were often dressed in the same clothing "as Goethe's description of Werther and using similar pistols." Often the book was found at the scene of the suicide."Death Squad has a way to go!
In regards to terrorism, I'm almost certain that Death Squad would have aligned himself more with the so-called "aesthetic terrorism" school of thought (see Adam Parfrey's essay in the book Apocalypse Culture (https://archive.org/details/ApocalypseCulture1987/page/n111/mode/2up))
Related anecdote: Joe Coleman who painted the cover of AC also performed in his early 'Professor Mombooze-o' days a terroristic intervention of sorts in an art gallery where as part of the finale he aimed a loaded gun at point blank range against the event organiser's temple. It's mentioned in the introduction/opening essay to The Book Of Joe, but I don't have it on hand right now to copy and paste the relevant passage.
The song Gloomy Sunday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloomy_Sunday#Urban_legends) (also known as 'The Hungarian Sucide Song') has allegedly been connected to several suicides too.
JLIAT, do you have the source for the Bennett interview/quote?
Quote from: theotherjohn on August 18, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
In regards to terrorism, I'm almost certain that Death Squad would have aligned himself more with the so-called "aesthetic terrorism" school of thought (see Adam Parfrey's essay in the book Apocalypse Culture (https://archive.org/details/ApocalypseCulture1987/page/n111/mode/2up))
Related anecdote: Joe Coleman who painted the cover of AC also performed in his early 'Professor Mombooze-o' days a terroristic intervention of sorts in an art gallery where as part of the finale he aimed a loaded gun at point blank range against the event organiser's temple. It's mentioned in the introduction/opening essay to The Book Of Joe, but I don't have it on hand right now to copy and paste the relevant passage.
The song Gloomy Sunday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloomy_Sunday#Urban_legends) (also known as 'The Hungarian Sucide Song') has allegedly been connected to several suicides too.
JLIAT, do you have the source for the Bennett interview/quote?
i think it was this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htl5JArfmkI
From this i think at the beginning he talks of an interest in the figures such as The Yorkshire ripper, but latter talks about concerns being more for the victims?
There is another where he discusses music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IL5qrPlfmk
Quotes from JLIAT :
QuoteWhen the CIA et al torture they seek not to kill, merely create that illusion in order to gain information. So if Death Squad had no intention to kill, merely create that illusion, again what difference is there?
The difference is that anyone who has been tortured for info would beg to go to that Death Squad performance instead ! Do you really cant see the difference ? I think you do. Amazes me how you even compare these two ! I dont get it, sorry. Thus i have nothing more to add on this. To instantly scare you and make you run away is not torture !
QuoteIf you were sure the artist's aim was just to shock and not kill the intent would fail. Hence the artwork would fail.
I am sure his aim wasnt to kill, i dont even know if to shock was an aim either. You call it failed artwork. I call it a performance, failed or not i wasnt there to have an opinion. A performance like the theatre you describe, thus art :
QuoteIf those in the audience didn't think it was equal, they would have not run for their lives. Again, as I said, in theatre the aim is to cause emotion in an audience that knows the performance isn't real. They do not run, but sit and get some pleasure from experiencing powerful emotions in relative safety. Thus the term 'Art'.
I really dont want to be too harsh with the audience who ran away cause, i dont know, different times. I guess i wouldnt run. Not now for sure, at least not till the first shot. But for example if there were fake 'terrorists' in the audience as part of the 'happening' started screaming islamic bullshit and holding guns or 'guns' , i wouldnt stay a second more to figure out what is happening ! So i dont want to be harsh on them. - Why you think an 'avant-garde' show is or has to be real. More real than a theatre ?
QuoteWhat if the 'artwork' is so shocking it causes a permanent mental condition
Too ridiculous to discuss about it. If we say there are such cases then the mental condition already exists ! Guys like these :
QuoteThe book reputedly also led to some of the first known examples of copycat suicide
Quote from: Theodore on August 19, 2020, 01:24:16 AM
I am sure his aim wasnt to kill, i dont even know if to shock was an aim either.
I'm sure putting a loaded gun to someone's head is to shock, to cause terror. If you cant see the difference between a theatrical performance where the violence is acted, there the audience can 'enjoy' a cathartic experience, ergo art, which dates at least to the Greek drama, and actual threats against ones person, then you are duty bound to accept Stockhausen's claim that 911 was a great artwork.
And there are laws preventing people from encouraging suicide and murder, for the very reason that ordinary people can be manipulated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#:~:text=The%20Milgram%20experiment%28s%29%20on%20obedience%20to%20authority%20figures,perform%20acts%20conflicting%20with%20their%20personal%20conscience%20.
And any number of religious suicide cults... People can be manipulated, esp by artists, why Plato banned them.
And yes, i've also finished.
I think one of my questions with respect to some of the criticism is the necessarily, um, "armchair" relation. That is to say, until I'm actually, physically, put in the moment, I'm not sure I'm fully qualified to offer criticism. By this I refer not a recording but to an event, as it is happening. Not having leave of all the "facts" we can at best speculate. One can speculate but cannot say, in-my-never-even-slightly-humble-opinion, with any conviction, whether this is art. Armchair criticism can only get us so far. After that time to invoke the nike ad.
I can only speak to the facts as they have been presented. And the "woman on yahoo" is a necessary part of that. The "woman on yahoo" helps define how I feel about it, but I think it fair enough to question whether this woman on yahoo is part of the performance. After all, this commentary and criticism is not taking place in the moment, it is taking place in the context of the (late) re-presentation of the moment. It is taking place in the context of all-too-easily misrepresented impressions of the moment. Ergo, the facts are fleeting at best.
I don't feel qualified to offer a proper criticism and therefore, the critique of the performance needs to thread that needle. In other words, you'll very probably have to bull your way through my skepticism. Good luck.
Quote from: Bloated Slutbag on August 19, 2020, 06:29:48 PM
I think one of my questions with respect to some of the criticism is the necessarily, um, "armchair" relation. That is to say, until I'm actually, physically, put in the moment, I'm not sure I'm fully qualified to offer criticism. By this I refer not a recording but to an event, as it is happening. Not having leave of all the "facts" we can at best speculate. One can speculate but cannot say, in-my-never-even-slightly-humble-opinion, with any conviction, whether this is art. Armchair criticism can only get us so far. After that time to invoke the nike ad.
I can only speak to the facts as they have been presented. And the "woman on yahoo" is a necessary part of that. The "woman on yahoo" helps define how I feel about it, but I think it fair enough to question whether this woman on yahoo is part of the performance. After all, this commentary and criticism is not taking place in the moment, it is taking place in the context of the (late) re-presentation of the moment. It is taking place in the context of all-too-easily misrepresented impressions of the moment. Ergo, the facts are fleeting at best.
I don't feel qualified to offer a proper criticism and therefore, the critique of the performance needs to thread that needle. In other words, you'll very probably have to bull your way through my skepticism. Good luck.
I'm not actually making a negative criticism (or positive) of Death Squad's performance. What i'm saying is that if it is to be considered as art, in the same way as Bennett, wanting to shock and make people run into the woods to paraphrase him, then it qualifies as art. As for qualitative judgements again is it the amount of shock, originality (Bennett might make this claim) or number of shocked.
And given that for some the artist's intention is insufficient, 'works' such as 911 could included, as sketched by Stockhausen who I think claimed the devil as the artist. In effect 911 or even WW2 is no different to Duchamp's ready mades. The latter being now considered as art.
If however one defines art differently, like a theatre production isn't 'the real thing' but 'acted' then Death Squad's performance might not be accepted, whereas a production of Macbeth, in which the murders and daggers are all fake, might be. Just as a painting of say a haystack might be considered as art, but an actual haystack not.
Given post-modernity and the failure of modernity's criteria either of the above is now the case, "if someone calls it art its art". If Bennett and Death Squad see the causation of terror as art it's OK by me, but I cant see in that case why an act of terrorism isn't therefore by the same criteria art also.
And lastly given ready mades such as field recordings, 4' 33" etc the art object (like a bottle rack) need not be actually the product of the artist.
I should probably avoid words like "criticism" and replace with something like, "have a coherent idea of what it is supposed to mean to me". Because I don't- have a coherent idea of what it is supposed to mean to me- because I wasn't there and I think in some instances, and this might be one, you would simply have to be.
Quote from: Bloated Slutbag on August 20, 2020, 11:18:56 AM
I should probably avoid words like "criticism" and replace with something like, "have a coherent idea of what it is supposed to mean to me". Because I don't- have a coherent idea of what it is supposed to mean to me- because I wasn't there and I think in some instances, and this might be one, you would simply have to be.
That's a perfectly reasonable attitude for you to hold about such work, and yet this work was recorded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=031jdFhXGwI presumably for others to watch? and so react to? Moreover the original post has " I'm sure many of you have heard about it but I thought I would give my take and go a bit more in depth researching it.
I'd love to start a conversation about it." So while you might rule yourself out of a conversation others do not. Do you think such a performance rules out ANY conversation? I.E. the extreme 'tactics' found in PE. Because i cant see why. And surely it follows then that other historical events may likewise be lost to ANY discussion.
And a coherent idea for me is that PE via its originators set out to shock audiences, and this 'work' is an example.
When you write statements like "In effect 911 or even WW2 is no different to Duchamp's ready mades", then all reasonable conversation goes out of the window, JLIAT.
The original Death Squad video on YouTube has comments disabled, so you won't find discussion there.
As for this derailed discussion/digression, it just stemmed from a young guy still finding their feet in this scene, promoting their modest opinion of some noise history through a YouTube video format and, I guess, potentially trying to get the algorithm to work in his favor if he used a sensationalist title, warning card and an provocative opening question with these keywords. Unfortunately for him, most of the discussion and interaction has taken place AWAY from that video and its comment section (this forum post currently has 3x views than said video essay), and none of us are any closer to what this performance was about (and certainly, Michael Nine is not going to explain or justify it). Or even, if Intent was indeed "the most extreme artistic performance of all time" (answer: no it's not, in more ways than one).
I don't feel the blame is necessarily on the original poster as I was more than happy to gently encourage him to keep making more videos and certainly I hope he does, but I'm not sure whether he still feels compelled to do so in the future after the direction this thread has taken. He's not been keeping up with the conversation on here himself which speaks volumes.
As for Bennett, please refer to an interview such as this one instead of using misquotes, paraphrases and incorrect assertions: http://www.susanlawly.freeuk.com/textfiles/whinterview01.htm
I would encourage a moderator to lock this thread if it is within their discretion and they see no further significant posts stemming from it. This has once again become a circle jerk for JLIAT's myopic interests.
Quote from: theotherjohn on August 20, 2020, 12:50:25 PM
When you write statements like "In effect 911 or even WW2 is no different to Duchamp's ready mades", then all reasonable conversation goes out of the window, JLIAT.
Did you read my reply in which I outlined Stockhausen claiming 911 was an artwork? As for the Bennett interview i'm not aware of my miss-representing what he said. I will re-listen and read the one you outlined. But when one of the most significant avant garde musicians makes a statement I think it deserves being addressed.
Stockhausen re 911 - "What happened there, is – now you must all reset your brain – the greatest artwork ever. That spirits accomplish in one act something that in music we could not dream of ..."Yeh 'short-sighted'
Yes, I'm fully aware of that statement. Damien Hirst said a similar thing too. Both were moronic and ignorant remarks, and thankfully both distanced themselves from their words later on. I would encourage you to do the same.
The problem again, as we've run into countless times in the last month or so with recent forum discussions, is the casual bandying around of loaded and highly reductive words like "extreme", "shocking" and - perhaps the most divided term of them all - "art", when justifying awful actions, opinions or motives committed by persons who aren't right in their mind or judgment. And we're never going to reach a conclusive answer, as said words have been corrupted so much overtime into sensational stereotypes that they are near-useless, precisely because they have been used repeatedly as a measure for prior awful actions, opinions or motives committed by similar dysfunctional people. You only need to mention concepts like "modern art" to your average everyman for them to bring up ghastly associations of it with soiled unmade beds or piles of rubbish in an art gallery setting (which through such an association apparently elevates it to something deserving of respect and attention), be it out of ignorance or media programming. And even though I could waffle on tirelessly too about the merits of Tracey Emin, Gustav Metzger or any other cause célèbre or iconoclast, who am I to correct your average Joe/Joanne when such ideas have been reinforced to the point of them becoming lowest common denominators?
Personally I would much rather seek out the greater moral good in people rather than their lowest points, even if not the fashionable thing to do in these current times. Thus, I would rather regard Stockhausen by his musical compositions than his ill-informed 9/11 outbursts, much as I would rather uphold the victims of 9/11 by the lives they had lived than their untimely demises at the hands of terrorists. Then again, numerous critics or theorists of a bombastic nature might also assert that Stockhausen or Cage or whoever's progressive/regressive approach to music was a tragedy on an equal scale for the later developments they inspired. No need to name names and go on any further with this tired topic, as yet again we're already missing the point of this thread... so I suggest we both step away from the computer and go outside for a change. It's quite sunny where I am here in the UK.
Well if we're just talking the video re-presentation of Intent my opinion is plain: fucking great!
I've enjoyed all the videos on the Michael Nine youtube channel, from Almost Dead In Chicago 1999 on through. All excellent, but my favorite I think is Waiting Room. It's clear the man's talents are not limited to the sounds, any one of the videos could stand alone as a solid piece of work.
Quote from: JLIAT on August 18, 2020, 10:15:09 AM
Quote from: Theodore on August 18, 2020, 12:14:21 AM
Cause i havent ever heard an artist to kill the audience as part of his performance. -
The other way round is more common
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Way_killings
[/quote]
The other way round is more common
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Way_killings
[/quote]
If I could go back in time I'd commission Mania to do an album about this.
The most recent episode of Harsh Truths podcast is an interview with Michael Nine- he talks about this performance and even expresses regret about the gun.
William T Vollmann fired a pistol loaded with blanks at a crowd during a reading about the same time in San Francisco. I wonder if anyone was at both events.
*ah, Vollmann did his in 92! Still...the question remains
Found some prior examples...
Quote
THE WORD `SURREALISM' first appeared in Paris during the summer of 1917. It was coined by the poet Guillaume Apollinaire. That summer saw the first performance of his play Les Mamelles de Tirésias, staged under the auspices of the review SIC (Sons, Idées, Couleurs).
The performance was announced for Sunday, 24 June, at the tiny Salle Maubel in Montmartre. André Breton, a young poet then serving as a medical auxiliary at the Val de Grâce hospital near the Sorbonne, urged his friend Jacques Vaché, who was due for some leave, to meet him there.
...
Unfortunately, though full of wit, the play was entirely devoid of structure. Soon the theatre was in uproar once more -- so much so that nobody seemed to notice the young officer in English uniform who entered the stalls at the end of the first act, pulled out his revolver, and prepared to discharge it into the audience.
...
André Breton, the auburn-haired young man, remembered this episode; the other participant, the `officer' (who was Jacques Vaché and not English at all) never gave his side of the story. The only certainty is that, years later, Breton defined `the simplest Surrealist act' as `going into the street, revolver in hand, and shooting at random into the crowd'. Not that he himself would ever have done any such thing. But Vaché might — or so Breton liked to think, and -- perhaps — Vaché really had.
Quote
Huelsenbeck claimed he and plants in the audience exchanged blank gunfire at his dada lectures...
The Second Manifesto of Surrealism - Selections
André Breton, 1929..
Quote. . . The simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down the street, pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger, into the crowd. Anyone who, at least once in his life, has not dreamed of thus putting an end to the petty system of debasement and cretinization in effect has a well-defined place in that crowd, with his belly at barrel level . . .
Quoteif it was realism to shoot a human being because he wore a German uniform, it would be superrealism to apply the principle more broadly.
Quote
Unforgettable is the Dada hero, Arthur Cravan, poet, boxer, soi‐disant nephew of Oscar Wilde, who gave unexpected emphasis to one of his lectures in Paris by firing off random pistol shots that sent his audience scrambling up the aisles.
Quote
Arthur Cravan organized a show in Paris, on 5 July 1914, during which he fired a pistol, boxed, danced and delivered a lecture, punctuated by insults to the audience...
Quote from: Eigen Bast on October 16, 2020, 11:06:02 PM
William T Vollmann fired a pistol loaded with blanks at a crowd during a reading about the same time in San Francisco. I wonder if anyone was at both events.
*ah, Vollmann did his in 92! Still...the question remains
And in 1998 in San Francisco Rudolf Eb.er as Runzelstirn & Gurgelstøck performed his 'Konzert For Piano and Shotgun' where he sat at a piano playing strange dissonant chords wailing and screaming incoherently for a while until he, barely intelligibly, screams "I'm gonna shoot you.....I'm gonna shoot you...And if you don't believe me...I'll do it! I have a weapon!" Then he stops, produces a shotgun, cocks it and shoots it into the audience. He does this two times, obviously using blanks, but still. The recording can be heard at the end of Runzelstirn & Gurgelstøck's 'Asshole / Snail Dilemma', you can hear the shell drop after the first shot. It's interesting these things were happening there around the same times, something in the air?
Interesting document, thank you
Thanks for sharing! I'm a fan of this stuff, and such topics are rare. Man, that's amazing! I think everything about it is excellent, and I'm waiting for even more videos! I also like writing essays, and I mostly post them on reddit under a fake name. None of my friends knows I write fanfics about my favorite movie characters. I hope it is not strange to reveal it to strangers and not talk about it to my close people. I use no helping sources but an app, wich checks my spelling and grammar (https://www.reddit.com/r/collegehub/comments/wfcbn9/best_essay_writing_service_reddit_20222024/), so I don't make any mistake and don't have to re-read it. I would love to see these videos; maybe I'll get inspiration to write even more