if I put a ham sandwich in a musical context, that doesn’t make it music.
Fine. You don’t think it’s music.
Why do you care if other people do?
But the sandwich has been practicing really hard!
No, I’ve been putting it in context. It’s you that appears to have a problem with the context, as you’ve ignored every post I’ve made about it, instead pretending that it’s just a period of silence. I’m pleased that you understand the daring involved in publishing and performing the piece, though.
Your point about it relying on everything but music to make it’s point is pretty close to the truth, though. Cage spent a good deal of his career experimenting with how far the composer and/or performer could be removed from the production of piece of music. 4’33’’ is obviously part of this, but is nowhere near as far as he went with it. Works like Music Of Changes, a solo piano work composed using the I Ching to determine the music. In this case, the randomness is at the composition stage, not the performance, so the performer is fully engaged. This is one of my favourite of his works, a genuinely beautiful piece of music.
There are works of his which are not musical - generally the now rather cliched “happenings” that were common in the sixties. There are also works that, for me, are genuinely on the border. One[sup]3[/sup] is the one that comes to mind. It’s somewhat similar in concept to 4’33’', but very different in execution. It basically consists of amplifying the ambient sound in a concert hall to the edge of feedback.
However if “background noise” (which is exactly what 4’33" is) can be called “music” and therefore “art,” the latter ends up, by definition, as a meaningless term.
If anything can be art it follows that everything can be art. And if everything can be art, there is no need to use a word to distinguish “art” from, well…anything. My own take on this issue is simple, all music is sound and any sound can be music – but not ALL sound is music. So just because someone decides NOT to play any music and call it “music” doesn’t make it music regardless of whatever random sounds are elicited.
Guess some people feel that finding deeper meaning in 4’ 33" makes them more sophisticated – as in finding the “true meaning” of something. Been there, done that. In my late teens/early twenties with the prerequisite bong at hand.
BTW, what reminds me that I am “alive” is concentrating on my own breathing – a wonderful meditative practice that I engage in frequently. Listening to someone coughing next to me? Not so much. YMMV.
Right…off to can my feces.
. I think it’s hilarious when so-called free market folks such as yourself get into these discussions and start telling people how art should and shouldn’t be. If people like you get into power, we will have our own little Entartete Kunst in no time, because the fact is that is the only way your going to control the free market factors that led modern art to where it is. Your right, the art world doesn’t give a flying fuck what your opinion of their work is, because you don’t have the slightest interest in it. The art world is not remotely monolithic. I’ll bet there are dozens of artists that do art you like, but you can’t even be bothered to look.
The art world is not your thing, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just don’t expect modern art museums to cater to your tastes. Frankly, the more outraged cowboys like you get, the more attention these artists get. More attention means more money, and that is the bottom line.
Meaning is overrated. There are a lot of really interesting artistic experiences to be had once you move away from trying to nail down the “correct” interpretation of a work.
Personally, I enjoy works that create an interesting playground for me to explore. Sometimes that exploration leads to something the artist intended, and sometimes it doesn’t. But the pleasure of the encounter comes from the experience of exploration, not the final destination.
There is no “true meaning” of 4’33. It is nothing more than what it is, a structured moment of listening.
“Mr. Picasso, what is art?”
“What isn’t?”
The thing is, practically everything man-made IS art! Take a look around you right now. How many asthetic decisions went into nearly everything you see? I’m in a very plain and boring office. The curves on the arms of a chair, the fabric on that chair, the color of the carpet, the design of the metal plate on my door, the design of my jacket, the logo on a business card, the design on a can of soda… it just goes on and on. The question is – what ISN’T art?
Not everyone listens to music to look cool.
In my practice it’s both, as well as feeling, tasting, and smelling. Seeing is optional. But hearing is the ultimate expression of that meditative practice. The philosophy class that I’m taking had a substitute teacher last weekend. He had us concentrate on listening for a good 6 or 7 minutes. In that course they really put emphasis on it.
If there aren’t well-drawn cougars in it, it isn’t art.
My definition, anyway.
I think any well-drawn large cat is worthy of being called art, not just your traditionalist cougar. And I don’t care if you think I’m a pretentious snob.
I think this might be the biggest straw man yet in a thread replete with them.
Thanks.
BTW, just thought of something. In the true spirit of 4’33" if someone farts while listening to it, it not only becomes music but perfume as well.
Awesome.
RedFury, if shitting on other people’s entertainment were an art form (and it probably is), you and a few others should start a gallery to display this thread.
That would be a multimedia performance. Or would that be perfumance?
I think Malthus is really onto something. Certainly his last post has given me greater insight.
Take the crumpled sheet of A4 paper. As I’ve said previously, its art is in the recontextualisation by placing in a gallery. But if the object itself isn’t the art, then it could be replaced by any other object that serves the same purpose–a pencil snapped in two, say. And this artistic statement keeps being made again and again and again. It is, frankly, tedious.
Where the aesthetic space becomes increasingly abstract, it also becomes increasingly narrow. A blank canvas and an empty glass case are the same piece because they express exactly the same idea. But the field where true craftsmanship is involved offers infinite variety.
You can only play at the narrow end for so long before you’ve said all that can be said.
It’s like the TV edit of Blazing Saddles.
I’ve always wondered about some of those unidentifiable sculptures owned by various municipalities Why, if you put it in a city square, or outside a public building is it “art”, and worth money… but if you put it in your own front yard, it’s “redneck junk”, and worth a citation?
That’s the problem, tdn. I do get it. I immediately understand the point.
I still think its a load of fucking tripe with its head so far up its own ass it’s mistaking gas for bass drums.
The fun thing about free markets is that anyone can say what things ought to be, including tasteless losers like those who disagree with me.
That’s where you’re wrong. I love art, and have taken some time to look at collections I enjoy. That’s why dirty, bad, wrong art offends me. I’ve already mentioned right here a showing I loved, which brught me nearly to ecstasy with awe and wonder. I still have no idea how the guy managed those shots.
The reason I despise so many damn “art lovers” is that they fawn all over shit and pass by the really great stuff. Some of these so-called artists should be mocked, so I mock them. It’s like Kaiser Wilhelm all over again, except this time it’s the art establishment which has the keys to the kingdom and is pimping hack work and stuffing the quality works into the attic.
It looks like we’re never going to agree. And I don’t think that there is a “right” answer to this anyway.
If you assume that the primary goal of art is express ideas, then you would be correct.
However, that way of thinking about art doesn’t do a very good job of explaining how may types of art actually function. For example, what idea is being expressed by Pachelbel’s Canon? Or the Mona Lisa?
If you want to express an idea, you’re better off writing a note than painting a picture or composing a symphony. Your meaning will be clearer and your audience won’t have to work so hard to discover it.
If, on the other hand, you assume that the primary goal of a work of art is to structure an experience, then lots of different types of art start to make more sense. Many forms of art are less about telling you something specific and more about creating an interesting mental space to explore.