I loved this, but to be fair to John Cage: some of his work requires, as you say, no inherent chops from the performers. But-
A) a lot of his composition and prep-work was very... very impressive. In which case, isn't the work impressive for the underlying code, which illuminates technical complexity on the part of the composer if not the player?
B) 4 33 is just as much incidental music as anything else- wherein environmental response dictates the melody rather than the person on the stage. Schmancy? Yes, but I see very little difference between this and your assertion about perceiving the beauty of the sycamore. When attention is directed at the sounds in between sounds, people might just start to appreciate with more enthusiasm things that they'd otherwise ignore as just everyday drone.
C) Cage may have once been considered weird, but his work has since influenced the output of mad composers, man. Electronic artists, contemporary classical guys, guitar legends, score-writers... His work may not be, uh, listenable, but his WORK has inspired plenty of people you've listened to.
D) He's not that weird. Have you heard Stockhausen's helicopter quartet? There is some gnarly, indigestible shit out there (see note). Cage just has the most brand recognition. And if he has brand recognition, his art can't be that inaccessible, can it?
Ultimately, though, E) It could reasonably be argued that Cage is more performance art than music, and there is a lot more leeway granted in performance art for eccentricity. Does any of this nullify your overall argument? No. But to say that classical music died with the advent of Cage is pretty unfair, especially since there have been perfectly decent classical composers since Cage, and he was certainly not the first experimental composer to sincerely fuck with the rules of the craft. Hildegarde Von Bingen. The Artusis and the Monteverdis. Gesualdo. Obligatory Stravinsky shout-out,
Anyhow, I badged, but then felt a pang of regret about readily accepting the cheap shot about Cage and music. Still a great read.
note: there's this one guy- wish I could remember his name- who put out an "album" that was just him stuffing a contact mic up his buttle and railing his girlfriend. That right thar is the example you should have used.
I read your comments Saturday and, after mulling them over a bit, I decided you deserve a better response than a couple of hastily hammered out paragraphs here. Or, if you prefer, you've gotten me interested enough in the topic to want to write more. I will be posting a follow-up article on my blog in a week or two (and will post it on hubski -- of course).
For now though:
The irony of my own position (B) wasn't lost on me.
I don't dislike cage personally. I don't even dislike his other music. For that matter, I don't especially dislike 4'33" -- I just feel it is a milestone in a dangerous trend.
I'm glad you enjoyed the work. I meant it to be enjoyable.
Thanks for the badge.
- note: there's this one guy- wish I could remember his name- who put out an "album" that was just him stuffing a contact mic up his buttle and railing his girlfriend. That right thar is the example you should have used.
Talking about Nymphomatriarch? Venetian Snares and Hecete. It wasn't just raw recordings of them having sex, they just used samples from those recordings rather than samples made with a synthesizer. It's really not that unusual an album if you ignore where the samples came from.
Good article. I was just earlier reading an article on this exact topic. The artist made this statement, with which I agree:
- My line of reasoning is very simple: MOMA is one of the most respected institutions of art worldwide, and it is a reflection of American society's culture. In fact, I think art is a great reflection of a society's philosophy. What does this imply from a philosophical perspective? Do you think that with such a low level of realism at perceiving reality we can thrive as individuals?
As I've mentioned previously, a piece of art has integrity when it represents the artist's values. The artwork that sells results from the standards of the buyer and/or the majority. Additionally, the artwork that sells also reflects the political environment, as art is highly regulated (e.g., via copyright laws). So when you look at what artists are creating, and when you look at what art is selling (and the prices they are selling at), you can gain a good understanding of how the mainstream views reality.
I agree too. I tried to post a comment on the article you referenced, but would have needed to login -- and I have reached my limit of joining things. As a mentioned to fuffle above, I've decided to write a follow up article to elaborate my position. I'd be interested in you're comments when I post. Like Clarisse88, I believe that is issue has rather larger ramifications than artistic taste.
- It is to be the process – to cease to be a bundle of concepts, identity, and noise. It is very simple, but it is not a capacity that life usually encourages.
When I was playing music live, often; I had a hard time being fully present on stage. I thought about the audience too much and it wouldn't be until the last several songs or the encore (if their was one) that I felt fully present and like I was making great art. The good artists can be that way ALWAYS. It's not easy to not be a "bundle of concepts, identity and noise."
Hey! Great to hear from you.
Yes, I should think it is especially difficult for musicians. Art is rather like zen -- or at least that is how I approach it when I am at my best. If you are not fully engaged, you're off the path. I fail often, but at least I understand what failure is.
Writing, on the other hand, is a peculiar sort of art. You have to consider your audience since you are trying to communicate with them. If I just babble things that amuse me, I'm not very interesting and I get nowhere. The effectiveness of one's writing is contingent on a deep understanding of one's audience. If I worry about my audience while painting I'll paint crap, but if I DON'T worry about my audience while writing I'll write crap. Music, maybe, is somewhere in between.
Hmm. I may be drifting toward the crap side here. Probably because I'm thinking about my work schedule...
My gripe with the art world is political. It seems that the role of an Artist is to give the Affluent symbols for which to express their status. To be an artist is to be a manufacturer of Veblen goods.
The only way I can see to redeem that position is to take the role of the Tailors in the Emperors new Clothes and sell them things that will embarrass them.
That's exactly how I felt 25 years ago -- which is more or less the period I am writing about. One's worldview and expectations change. At some point later, I realized not being a huge artistic success (art, music, writing -- take your pick) is not such a big deal. What most people like, after all, is crap.
Thanks for the comment. Good luck with your revenge. You realize, of course, that your victims will never get the joke...
I don't have the soul for grift. I am old enough just to make art for people I like.
Have you read The Shape of Content? Ben Shahn is prescient about the changes art was about to go through. I think it is the fault of academia. Along with "Serious" Music, Journalism and Jazz as soon as you could get a degree in it pow gone to shit.
I had a look at your site. No, you haven't the soul for grift. I too either make art for people I like -- or give art I've made for no particular reason to people I like.
No, I haven't read The Shape of Content, but the point about academia sounds plausible. Yeah, jazz died a pretty awful death too. Journalism? Let's not even go there...