THINQon : Controversial album cover

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Sharon Levy

Controversial album cover

Latest Post: July 24, 2011 at 5:19 AM

8 followers

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2011/07/is-the-cover-of-steve-reichs-wtc-911-striking-or-crass-1.html
Am curious what folks think of Steve Reich's new album cover (a darkened photo of the twin towers in the 911 attack). I find it disturbing, but recognize that there's not just one way to see this.

Reply to:

Arthur Mont

July 23, 2011 at 7:21 PM

72 followers

I don't see anything whatsoever wrong with it. Or am I being blind? Reich wants to add an image to his music, a sad and articized image (hence the filter) of the event. The image captures a certain point in time just before the second plane hits, so it's both already a disaster, and you feel the impending greater disaster.
I wrote a post about Guernica and portrayals of suffering where I brought as an example Poussin. Poussin as well uses time in this way, the time of the event opening up through the impending disaster. (It's in most of his paintings, but I'm thinking of a specific case with a snake in the grass which I'll add here when I can find it.) I think it became a usual technique in portrayals of suffering - the moment just before, and if possible, just after the event started.

Some of the specific hoopla here may be to generate publicity for the album. Personally, I think it's a strong image, and can work well with his music. And if because he actually lived near the towers people accept that he has more right to use the image than others, then that helps too.

Think of it as a very minimalist opera decor. All you have is the picture, but it's a background to the music.

More to the point, it seems to me, is whether the music is ethical in the way he supposedly is using real victim's voices in his music, even if they too went through a digital treatment (filter), but that's a different question (and harder to respond to without listening to the music).

Edna Stern tagged this post as Insightful.

Reply to: or

Sharon Levy

In response to Arthur Mont

July 23, 2011 at 9:03 PM

8 followers

Arthur, thanks for your comments. Certainly I don’t think you’re being blind in any way, and your comments about the music the most essential thing here seem absolutely spot-on. (I also haven’t heard the piece, but I think the questions you very respectfully raise are great ones.) I think perhaps the cover bothers me in part b/ of the associated marketing element, the sense (which may be utterly unfair) of using this horror in part to make money. Of course artists deserve to be paid for their work (as do the producers of their work), and it’s certainly legitimate and indeed appropriate for artists to reflect on the huge events of their time and, in Reich’s case, place. And yet… I’m still disturbed by it. It feels too easy, a little cheap somehow (which I admit may be an irrational reaction). We also all probably draw the line differently b/w truth and sensationalism (e.g., the flap about publishing the deceased Osama’s photo- fwiw, I was glad they didn’t). There’s also a good Slate article on this (there’s a link to it w/in my original LA Times posting) which challenges the cover not on moral/aesthetic grounds but on the grounds that it doesn’t fairly or appropriately represent the music- though, if this is the case (and the Slate author makes a pretty compelling argument), you have to wonder what the reasons were for that cover, other than commercial ones. And that feels troubling.

Reply to: or

Arthur Mont

In response to Sharon Levy

July 24, 2011 at 2:31 AM

72 followers

I agree with your sentiment, and I haven't listened to the music, but it's not like they are performing Mozart. That is, the piece is called WTC 9/11. After that, what does it mean to say it is unrelated to the music I don't understand. I didn't read the Slate article. I'm not sure why, but somehow I feel it will annoy me, and talking about publicity - isn't it also Slate's way of getting readership?

But even if the picture wasn't completely related, to use again the example of an opera stage, many times the background and costumes are completely unrelated - a directors fantasy. For example, I seem to remember a Wagner's Ring performance with WWII background, or something of that nature, by Barenboim in Bayreuth. I don't remember any details but there was some controversy. In those cases you can claim it isn't connected, but even in those cases the director will claim there is hidden meaning, etc.

Not to mention, controversy and art go hand in hand, as otherwise how would you get noticed.