Talking about Terrorism – Part 3 – The relationship between Art and Terrorism

Role of Context

Context is essential to appreciating the art that engages with terrorism or societal critique. Without it, the emotional depth and critical choices embedded in the art risk being lost. For example, Pussy Riot’s 2012 performance of “Punk Prayer” in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior was an artistic act of defiance against what they perceived as the oppressive collusion of church and state under Vladimir Putin’s regime. The group entered the cathedral, wearing brightly colored balaclavas and tights, and staged a guerrilla performance near the altar, a space considered sacred by the Orthodox Church. Their song, “Mother of God, Drive Putin Away,” criticized the church’s open support of Putin during his presidential campaign and denounced the use of religious authority to suppress dissent and validate autocratic power.

The performance challenged the legitimacy of the church’s role in politics, drawing attention to how it had aligned itself with state power to marginalize opposing voices, including feminist and LGBTQ+ activists. However, without proper context, many audiences, especially those unfamiliar with group’s agenda, interpreted the performance as a direct attack on Orthodox Christianity itself rather than a critique of authoritarianism. This misunderstanding led to polarizing reactions: some hailed the act as revolutionary, while others condemned it as blasphemous and disrespectful. This polarization underscores the importance of context in art, as it provides the necessary framework to understand the motivations behind such acts. By offering this context, viewers are better equipped to empathize with the message and recognize the artistic work’s broader sociopolitical implications.

Role of the Media

The media is often the first to frame terrorism for public consumption, transforming it into a spectacle of fear and tragedy. It becomes the stage for and the first interaction between the public and the terror event in question. Bruce Jenkins, in his essay “International Terrorism: A New Kind of Warfare,” argues that terrorism operates as a form of theater, meticulously designed to command mass attention and shape public perception. This performative nature is perhaps most evident in the attacks of September 11, 2001, which Jenkins describes as a carefully choreographed spectacle. Al-Qaeda’s selection of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as targets was deeply symbolic, aiming to expose vulnerabilities in the perceived invincibility of the United States. These locations represented American economic and military dominance—pillars of the global power structure Al-Qaeda sought to challenge. The attacks, therefore, were not merely violent but ideologically charged acts of communication. By orchestrating the destruction of these iconic sites, Al-Qaeda intended to project their grievances about U.S. military interventions in the Middle East and the broader “Western desecration” of Islamic values.

The visual impact of the 9/11 attacks, amplified through global media coverage, furthered Al-Qaeda’s ideological goals. The group sought to inspire a global uprising among sympathizers by framing the United States as vulnerable and morally corrupt. The attacks were designed to provoke fear, undermine U.S. authority, and symbolically challenge its dominance. This calculated use of symbolism and spectacle aligns with Jenkins’ concept of terrorism as theater, where the act itself is less about immediate destruction and more about the message it conveys to a global audience.

German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen controversially referred to 9/11 as “the greatest work of art,” emphasizing its theatricality and ability to command worldwide attention. While this perspective highlights the symbolic and strategic dimensions of terrorism, it risks reducing the event to an abstract narrative, overshadowing the profound human cost. The loss and trauma experienced by victims and their families must remain central to any analysis of such acts. Media must tread carefully, ensuring their portrayals foster understanding of the ideological motivations behind terrorism without trivializing the suffering of those affected. Responsible framing, free of sensationalism, is essential to avoid turning terrorism into a commodified spectacle.

The role of Symbolic Targets

Symbolic targets hold immense power in shaping collective memory and national identity, serving as focal points for both collective grief and ideological struggle. Walter Benjamin offers valuable insight into the aestheticization of destruction in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. He explores how technological advancements, like photography and film, alter our perception of art and its original context. In one of his most striking observations, Benjamin notes that in a world increasingly alienated from its essence, humanity has developed the capacity to find aesthetic pleasure in its own destruction. This idea resonates profoundly in the context of symbolic targets, where acts of destruction, such as terrorism, take on a performative quality that appeals to the disenfranchised as a form of rebellion against the status quo.

This dynamic is evident in the case of Ground Zero, the site of the Twin Towers in New York City, destroyed during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Ground Zero initially emerged as a sacred space for mourning, reflection, and collective solidarity, representing both the profound loss of life and the symbolic vulnerability of the United States. However, over time, the site has been transformed into what some critics call “Groundzeroland,” highlighting its shift from a solemn memorial to a commercialized tourist attraction. Visitors can now purchase souvenirs, such as t-shirts and mugs emblazoned with imagery of the towers or patriotic slogans, which commodifies the tragedy and risks trivializing its significance.

This commercialization, while often justified as a means of sustaining the memorial and educating future generations, reflects the tension Benjamin describes. For some, the transformation of Ground Zero into a consumable experience represents a dilution of its original meaning. What was once a site of shared grief and national resilience now risks becoming a spectacle, catering to curiosity rather than solemn remembrance. The aesthetic appeal of destruction, as Benjamin suggests, can thus obscure the deeper narratives of loss, resilience, and accountability that these symbols should preserve.

To preserve the integrity of such symbols, communities must invest in ongoing efforts to contextualize their significance. This involves creating educational programs, oral histories, and inclusive memorial practices that prioritize the voices of those directly impacted. For example, the National September 11 Memorial & Museum aims to balance remembrance with education, preserving the stories of victims while contextualizing the events of 9/11. Symbols, while powerful, require stewardship to maintain their relevance and avoid being co-opted by other movements or narratives.

Role of the Artists

Artistic depictions of terrorism are inherently complex. On one hand, they humanize perpetrators, fostering a deeper understanding of their motivations. For instance, the film The Battle of Algiers depicts the Algerian fight for independence, offering nuanced portrayals of both French colonial forces and the FLN. On the other hand, such portrayals risk justifying violent acts. This moral ambiguity underscores the importance of tone and focus in artistic representations.

Different forms of art offer varying degrees of accessibility and depth. Novels provide detailed narratives but may alienate audiences due to their complexity. Murals are widely accessible but lack the space for nuance. Films strike a balance, offering depth while reaching a broad audience. Ultimately, the effectiveness of artistic representation depends on its ability to provoke critical questions without alienating or offending its audience.

Therefore aestheticization of terrorism is the biggest threat that stems from artist. While it has the potential to empower marginalized voices and provoke critical debates, it can also trivialize profound loss and perpetuate cycles of violence. The greatest damage artists can inflict is to aestheticize terrorism in a way that abstracts its violent reality and human suffering, reducing it to a visual or narrative spectacle.

This can happen when artists, intentionally or not, focus on the symbolism or drama of terrorist acts while ignoring the trauma of victims and the ethical complexities surrounding the events. For instance, overly dramatized depictions or glorified portrayals of terrorist acts risk turning them into objects of fascination rather than critical reflection, inadvertently validating or amplifying their impact. An impact that seeks to leave a lasting symbolic imprint through acts of violence. 

An example of the dangers of aestheticizing terrorism can be seen in the controversial reception of the 2006 film United 93, which dramatizes the events aboard the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. While the film aimed to honor the courage of passengers who resisted the hijackers, some critics argued that its cinematic techniques—such as slow-motion sequences, heightened dramatic tension, and emotionally charged music—risked turning the tragedy into a form of entertainment. By emphasizing the visual and emotional drama of the event, the film inadvertently invited viewers to engage with the story as a spectacle, potentially overshadowing the real-life suffering and trauma of those involved.

The fine line between paying tribute and aestheticizing tragedy is starkly evident here. Although the film sought to preserve the memory of the passengers’ bravery, its reliance on cinematic conventions risked trivializing the event and reducing its impact to a compelling narrative for mass consumption. This illustrates how, even with good intentions, artists and filmmakers can inadvertently aestheticize acts of terrorism, amplifying their symbolic dimensions at the expense of their human and ethical complexities. Such examples serve as cautionary tales, emphasizing the need for responsible storytelling that prioritizes dignity, reflection, and authenticity over spectacle.

Therefore the challenge for artists, media, and society is set — to navigate these representations responsible. Doing so ensures that their work fosters understanding, empathy, and critical dialogue without veering into romanticization or sensationalism. Ultimately, the question remains whether these artistic conversations will unite or polarize us further, and whether they can balance the need for reflection with the imperative to preserve the dignity of those affected by such acts.

Final Thoughts

The interconnected relationship between art, media, and terrorism requires intentionality and ethical responsibility. Media, with its extensive reach, must be held accountable for shaping public perceptions given that they often inform the public their first relationship to an incident. Regulation should promote critical analysis, discourage sensationalism, make it clear when opinions are being shared and prioritize factual reporting. Meanwhile, art, as a more intimate and subjective medium, should remain free from regulation but socially accountable. Artists must carefully consider the impact of their work, ensuring it fosters understanding rather than division but most importantly not to be tone deaf.

The relationship between terrorism and art also challenge us to think critically about representation, memory, and narrative. Art offers a lens through which we can explore the complexities of terrorism, while media shapes the collective memory of these events. Both mediums carry ethical responsibilities that must be navigated with care. Ultimately, by balancing intentionality with empathy, we can transform the art and terrorism relationship into opportunities for healing, understanding, and meaningful dialogue. Whether through art, media, or collective memory, our approach to terrorism must prioritize depth, sensitivity, and a commitment to preserving the integrity of its stories.