Modern Composition John Cage

Well, it can sound like Brahms 4, if the audience decides to play Brahms 4 during the concert. So really, if you're in the audience and it annoys you that it doesn't sound like Brahms 4, you're the one to blame!

Well, it can sound like Brahms 4, if the audience decides to play Brahms 4 during the concert. So really, if you're in the audience and it annoys you that it doesn't sound like Brahms 4, you're the one to blame!

Touche my good man!

"Art is whatever the hell you want it to be."

Although on the face of this I agree, it would be interesting to follow the line of reasoning through, perhaps as follows.

1. Art is whatever I want it to be.

2. Art can be anything.

3. Art can be everything: it is all embracing.

4. Art is everything: everything can be viewed as being a kind of art and seen from an artistic stanpoint.

5. Art is nothing: if everything is art, what is left that can be called art?

And this has become, in some ways, quite true. Because of the events of the 20th century, we have formulated a way of looking at the world that can turn whatever we see into art; hence Stockhausen's comments about 9/11 (before anyone gets into that, I think we can fairly say Stockhausen was a crackpot, and a mystic, but anyway).

I would not say however this line of reasoning is entirely true. Here's why: art is an industry, less so than the other industries (it has a large government and independant financial backing), but it is still a force on which many people's livelihoods depend. Money has to be made, somewhere. Therefore, if art is really everything, and therefore nothing, nothing can be sold as art. Instead, art has become whatever that is placed in the context of being art. I think this is what 4'33" really taps into: silence is an impossible thing for people who can hear; even in a perfectly soundproof room, we can hear the sound of our hearts and our bones and the nerves firing in our bodies. Sound surrounds us all the time. The way John Cage illustrates this is by creating a moment of silence, and therefore sound, at the point at which our ears are most carefully atuned to noticing sound, a concert. This sound becomes art because it is placed in the context of being art.

But more importantly, it is expressing this idea. The people have bought their tickets, found their seats, read their programmes, talked with their neighbours, only to be shown what they should have been noticing their entire lives. People going away complaining from such an experience seem to me to have missed the point.

For me, art does need to have boundaries. But the only boundary I can see, so far, is this one: Art is expression. The expression of an idea, as with Cage; a kinaesthesic feeling; beauty (or un-beauty); the power of systems and rules and structures; a narrative or scene; emotion; relationships; spacial, sonic, and/or visual balence/clarity for their own sake. The list can be extrapolated. But art is not anything and everything - if it were it would lose its meaning. Instead, Art is a powerful reminder of what things human beings have come to value, whether aesthetic, or more general in life as a whole, presented through expression. For me, this expression works best when I leave the theatre or art gallery or concert hall feeling enriched - a different person than the one that walked in. Art, at its most powerful, is the eternal transference of this expression.

L.

I like this post, I agree with most of it, but fail to see how the hell steps 4-5 makes logical sense. "Art is everything, therfore it is nothing?" You ask if art is everything what is left that can be called art - you said it yourself - everything.

*befuddled*

I suppose what is meant is this: If an attribute (in this case being art) applies universally to everything, it loses any way to define itself and thus its own identity. It has no opposites anymore (like nature, for example), so it becomes something that is form- and meaningless. Calling something art would be as meaningless as calling an specific animal organic, so the term art, in a sense, dissolves into nothing.

Just like if everyone was super intelligent, then no one would be.

Because everyone is, it would therefore be the norm, and so everyone would be of average intelligence.

So if everything is art, then nothing is art. Because as Gardener said:

...it loses any way to define itself and thus its own identity.

Well thats what I think anyways...but then I am a strange person.

I suppose what is meant is this: If an attribute (in this case being art) applies universally to everything, it loses any way to define itself and thus its own identity. It has no opposites anymore (like nature, for example), so it becomes something that is form- and meaningless. Calling something art would be as meaningless as calling an specific animal organic, so the term art, in a sense, dissolves into nothing.

i think this comes from being entrapped in a logic of two - everything vs. nothing, art/nature. while it may help to define something it usually does nothing good to the thing you try to define. art is not an opposite of something, the same as nature. they are completely heterogenous domains of multiple. and every thing in these domains are as well composed of other multiples ad infinitum. to avoid everything/nothing opposition, one just needs to think art as an instance of infinity (infinite possibility of compositions) and difference. its works are disseminated. they can come out anywhere and out of nowhere - in a sense that there is no purely artistic situation - there is no place where you would certainly know - this is where art is born.

even the drive to define art is an result of desire to have , to create an opposition. ''if i know what is art, i will know what is not art.'' yet, if one thinks art as a child infinite and difference, there is no need to define art in any strict sense. what a definition may say about something, whose instances are being born there and here, without any necessity and any dualistic logic? of course you can go to definition through negation - ''art is not this, art is not that...'', but it doesn't bring truth to the one trying to define nor to the thing it tries to define.

it's not about definition.

it's about truth.

living truth.

the truth(s) of subject(s).

there never was nor will ever be any objectivity in and of art. it has nothing to do with encyclopedic (knowledge).

it's a unique number.

Keep in mind that I wasn't voicing my personal opinion, just trying to give a possible explanation of LDunn's point. I think there's a huge difference between "everything can become art" and "everything is art". I agree with the first, not with the latter.

You, pliorius, raised some good points. However, I see nothing wrong with trying to define art (even if you "fail"). "Art" is a word and part of language, which serves to communicate. (Don't read this wrongly! I said the word "art" is part of language and serves to communicate, not art itself!) The existence of the word "art" would be pointless without at least a vague idea of a definition. We don't have to define art, but in that case we don't need the word art either and better stopped using it at all. -If- we use the word "art" we might just as well try to define it (knowing that such a definition will be imperfect).

Otherwise we can just talk about a concept such as "Blebribog", say that it has no definition, no properties, and applies to everything. It won't really be of much use.

I now better understand what was meant by the everything/nothing thing, and I think I've come to a conclusion myself that art can be anything that is declared so - I think that makes sense to me :)

Performance art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :whistling:

Yeah, I'd call this performance art but not music necessarily. I think the simple fact that after all this time there is still debate over the merits of this piece validates the fact that it is art.

It's like asking if Andy Kaufman was a good comedian. The fact that you can still debate that means that he, and probably some others, is laughing his donkey off somewhere. Obviously he was an amazing comedian given that fact.

Keep in mind that I wasn't voicing my personal opinion, just trying to give a possible explanation of LDunn's point. I think there's a huge difference between "everything can become art" and "everything is art". I agree with the first, not with the latter.

You, pliorius, raised some good points. However, I see nothing wrong with trying to define art (even if you "fail"). "Art" is a word and part of language, which serves to communicate. (Don't read this wrongly! I said the word "art" is part of language and serves to communicate, not art itself!) The existence of the word "art" would be pointless without at least a vague idea of a definition. We don't have to define art, but in that case we don't need the word art either and better stopped using it at all. -If- we use the word "art" we might just as well try to define it (knowing that such a definition will be imperfect).

Otherwise we can just talk about a concept such as "Blebribog", say that it has no definition, no properties, and applies to everything. It won't really be of much use.

i agree with the fact that ''art'' is a word we use to designate something. i agree that its use is intra-lingual and being so it must have relations to other words. i just wanted to point out that relations are not necessarily of the that/this, black/white type. and the sense of ''not perfect definition'' most probably means understanding. so, we might not have any definition of art (just opinions, thoughts and so on) and try to understand the idea (not the word) of art. i am all for living into the question ''what is art?'' or, more sincerely - "what comes to be art, what may become art?'", yet is doesn't mean i have a definition of art - just some sort of goal, an idea that moves my thoughts.

p.s of course we can talk about concepts of 'blebribog', but and only if they have (are shown to have) relations to other words or concept( ideas). inventing neologisms is not something wrong. it helps. we need new word for new things.

I think I understand what you mean and I agree.

My line of reasoning involved some large jumps that would require some justification. It could perhaps be seen as more of a thought experiment or sketch.

With regards to "everything is art" vs. "everything can be seen as art", I would hope this would be cleared up by my boundary of "art as expression". If something is created with the intent of expressing something, or produced in a way so that things may be expressed to others, it is art. Everything else that does not fall into this category could be argued not to be art. This is, possibly, a harsh, rather contrived boundary, but it does apply largely I would argue. Just like Tracey Emin's bed - your own un-made bed in the morning is not a piece of art, but hers is, because it was expressing a set of ideas to others through being placed in a certain context.

This idea presents an interesting problem for spiritual/religious people who believe in a creator of this world. I am not one of these people, but I imagine one could argue that if the world were created, it could have been made expressly for the purpose of communicating certain feelings/ideas to us, and would therefore be a piece of art. I would prefer to think of art as being a human construct*, but be that as it may, this does present an interesting line of thought.

If it seems that one can clear up the question of "what is art", albeit rather obtusely, with a bit of armchair thought, consider the more interesting question which I think this conversation has actually been about:

"What is good art?"

L.

*I suppose anything that is a human construct is indirectly a construct of God. I don't particularly enjoy thinking like this, however.

In my opinion good art is art that makes you think.

So 4,33 is bloody good art :)

Although that doesn't take into account the great deal of great music or visual art that doesn't really make you think, but is still definitely good art...

Bugger :hmmm:

Good art is honest :hmmm:

This is, possibly, a harsh, rather contrived boundary, but it does apply largely I would argue. Just like Tracey Emin's bed - your own un-made bed in the morning is not a piece of art, but hers is, because it was expressing a set of ideas to others through being placed in a certain context.

I see your point, but I make my bed every morning with the intention that it looks pleasing to the eye. I tidy my room so that it looks better. That is an expression so to speak of, but I do not make the claim to be an artist. I wash the dishes so they may look nice and clean, but is this art? I can only assume that the reason for calling washing the dishes art, would be to make a false claim to artistry. Simply put, if we lower artistic standards anyone can be an artist. John Cage in his own words; 'But if this is music, (referring to noise) then I could write it as well as you' (Must have been quoting a friend of his). That is entirely the point, music can't be written by just anybody, which is why it is an artistic expression. A sculpture or a painting cannot be produced by just anybody, which is why it is art. Art and music are abilities, and if you concede that noise is music or washing the dishes art, then art and music no longer need ability, and in my opinion this is an offensive notion to the people who actually spend their lives perfecting their abilities. It's the same as me claiming to be a novelist, by submitting a blank book (4'33''), or just writing scrambled jumbled nonsense (noise). To be honest, If I tried to claim that I was a novelist in this way, I would be laughed at. Frankly, I think its dishonest.

I am awaiting the first school report that says, 'he shows much artistic promise; yesterday he scribbled his name on a urinal'.

Simply put, if we lower artistic standards anyone can be an artist.

Ahem,

THE HORROR! OH MY GOD WHAT EVER WILL WE DO IF OUR ARTISTS DON'T COME FROM AN ELITE TIGHT-donkey CIRCLE-JERK TRADITIONAL BACKGROUND?!?!?!?!?!?!?onequestionmarkoneone

*cough*

You discredit someone's status as an artist, and yours is brought into question as well. Keep that in mind, artist that defines "What is art" in his favor is only going to end up with a black eye to show for it. I hope that you don't actually go to modern art schools and talk about this scraggy. Or for that matter, anywhere.

PS: Bunch this with my other reply to your post in the repertoire forum.

Well, it can sound like Brahms 4, if the audience decides to play Brahms 4 during the concert. So really, if you're in the audience and it annoys you that it doesn't sound like Brahms 4, you're the one to blame!

One day I shall go to a performance of 4'33'' and sing Beethoven's fifth through it.

The point would be that if you want silence, the concert hall is not the place to get it. :D

Ahem,

THE HORROR! OH MY GOD WHAT EVER WILL WE DO IF OUR ARTISTS DON'T COME FROM AN ELITE TIGHT-donkey CIRCLE-JERK TRADITIONAL BACKGROUND?!?!?!?!?!?!?onequestionmarkoneone

*cough*

You discredit someone's status as an artist, and yours is brought into question as well. Keep that in mind, artist that defines "What is art" in his favor is only going to end up with a black eye to show for it. I hope that you don't actually go to modern art schools and talk about this scraggy. Or for that matter, anywhere.

OH NO! I'm questioning our perceptions of art! Utter hippocrate. You love John Cage's work for it's ability to question, yet you question my ability to question. I'm entitled to question anything I want, and for you to try to make me shut up in such a pathetic attempt just shows that you don't actually follow John Cage's beliefs at all. *cough*

Wasn't one of 4'33'' redeeming features the fact that it stirred debate? Well I'm debating, and all you can do is to try to belittle me at every turn. What a poignant metaphor, somebody who supports anti-art telling someone who supports art to keep his childish trap shut.

Yawn....

Wait a minute...

You seem to be a incredibly well informed music teacher (?)... Why belittle yourself, by supporting 'composers' who have shortcutted the road to success by not actually bothering to learn form, structure etc, or indeed had any musical talent to begin with?

OH NO! I'm questioning our perceptions of art! Utter hippocrate. You love John Cage's work for it's ability to question, yet you question my ability to question. I'm entitled to question anything I want, and for you to try to make me shut up in such a pathetic attempt just shows that you don't actually follow John Cage's beliefs at all. *cough*

.. eh? That was a quick reply, I suppose you didn't really think about what you wrote that hard, eh?

First off, you have no idea why I like Cage's work, nor have I actually talked about it. Second, what I'm saying is entirely based on the fact that an opinion like yours only discourages people from actually having the guts to try and become artists.

I couldn't give a flying gently caress about what you think art is (you're just a dude on the interwebs). I'm simply pointing out that what you're saying simply isn't productive, practical, nor at any rate constructive.

I'd rather EVERYONE produce art, music, sculpture, anything at all. I don't care if people think washing dishes is art, so long as they try to get involved in a sort of artistic process, which is something so many people lack. A whole lot of people would benefit from having at least 1% of their lives dedicated to building something with their own hands. Regardless of skill, aesthetic, any of that.

It's not only psychologically healthy, it's also emotionally constructive. There's no secret there, it's not something I just pulled out of thin air.

I'm not going to deny anyone the chance to create what they think is art purely because I don't like what they have done. That's not how it works.

So, really? Try to spend a little more thought on what you answer, it makes you look silly if you don't.

PS: Oh god please post everything under ONE post, there's an edit button for a reason! And, to answer your question, I'm of the opinion that ALL MUSIC IS VALUABLE, no matter WHO wrote it, HOW they wrote it, or WHEN they wrote it. So long as a person was involved, or even if it was a machine, or even if it's a WASHING MACHINE, I think sound is fantastic. More so when people shape it to do things, or work with it in different ways, etc etc. I attempt to study and grasp every single composer, every single style, and every single epoch. I find it is my responsibility with the world, art, and every other person who has ever wanted to say anything through whatever means they could (music in this case.)

I hope that answers your question, as to why I "belittle" myself with composers such as Cage.

.. eh? That was a quick reply, I suppose you didn't really think about what you wrote that hard, eh?

First off, you have no idea why I like Cage's work, nor have I actually talked about it. Second, what I'm saying is entirely based on the fact that an opinion like yours only discourages people from actually having the guts to try and become artists.

I couldn't give a flying gently caress about what you think art is (you're just a dude on the interwebs). I'm simply pointing out that what you're saying simply isn't productive, practical, nor at any rate constructive.

I'd rather EVERYONE produce art, music, sculpture, anything at all. I don't care if people think washing dishes is art, so long as they try to get involved in a sort of artistic process, which is something so many people lack. A whole lot of people would benefit from having at least 1% of their lives dedicated to building something with their own hands. Regardless of skill, aesthetic, any of that.

It's not only psychologically healthy, it's also emotionally constructive. There's no secret there, it's not something I just pulled out of thin air.

I'm not going to deny anyone the chance to create what they think is art purely because I don't like what they have done. That's not how it works.

So, really? Try to spend a little more thought on what you answer, it makes you look silly if you don't.

Sorry, but the idea that Tracy Emin is regarded as a brilliant artist and has probably been made fairly wealthy due to the fact she didn't tidy her bed for 4 months, is utterly offensive to the artists who are actually artistically talented and may be struggling to put bread on the table.

Heard of penumbriationism? The art world is incredibly phoney... Edit: I spelled that wrong, I can't remember what it's actually called, but I was referring to the submission of purposefully bad pieces of art being accepted into an art gallery.

Sorry, but the idea that Tracy Emin is regarded as a brilliant artist and has probably been made fairly wealthy due to the fact she didn't tidy her bed for 4 months, is utterly offensive to the artists who are actually artistically talented and may be struggling to put bread on the table.

Heard of penumbriationism? The art world is incredibly phoney...

Hah, well, I personally think a lot of the art world is nonsense, when it comes to money, exhibitions, etc. So, in a sense, I agree with you there. But! It still shouldn't discourage anyone to try to do what they can, or want.

Oh, btw, Cage DID study "proper" music as well. He was a student of both Cowell and Schoenberg, both very entrenched in classical theory, etc etc. He just opted to do different things.

Hah, well, I personally think a lot of the art world is nonsense, when it comes to money, exhibitions, etc. So, in a sense, I agree with you there. But! It still shouldn't discourage anyone to try to do what they can, or want.

Oh, btw, Cage DID study "proper" music as well. He was a student of both Cowell and Schoenberg, both very entrenched in classical theory, etc etc. He just opted to do different things.

No you're right. Sorry, I came across as a bit of an arse there. I don't want to stop people from doing what they want, but I just think its a little bit offensive when people start getting 'critically acclaimed' for something that anybody could have done. I mean, when I hear someone say that John Cage is their favourite composer, it essentially means that they don't care about the skill and talent required to make good musical composition. It's like somebody with no talent winning a talent show, it wouldn't be fair.

Oh by the way, Schoenberg had nothing good to say about Cage's musical abilities.

No you're right. Sorry, I came across as a bit of an arse there. I don't want to stop people from doing what they want, but I just think its a little bit offensive when people start getting 'critically acclaimed' for something that anybody could have done. I mean, when I hear someone say that John Cage is their favourite composer, it essentially means that they don't care about the skill and talent required to make good musical composition. It's like somebody with no talent winning a talent show, it wouldn't be fair.

Oh by the way, Schoenberg had nothing good to say about Cage's musical abilities.

Well, I can understand what you mean, but even so. If Cage's music has the power to move someone, even if it's only one person, he is just as good as a composer as any. If his art has made anyone think, then he's done good. People need more thinking, and less automatic formulas writing their music.

Also:

Although Schoenberg never complimented Cage on his compositions during these two years, in a later interview he said that none of his American pupils were interesting, except Cage: "Of course he's not a composer, but he's an inventor—of genius."

from: John Cage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (With sources!)

Screw being a composer, I'd like to be an inventor of goddamn genius!