|
haha I remember having this same discussion about this same piece when I took a my first music and digital technology course at university
I don't look to everything as art. There's a lot of people who like to feel they are open minded or progressive when they say that, but the way I feel about it is the difference between art and not art is the way it is presented/framed/biased.
For instance, some 20 year old northamerican sorority girl takes photos of her friends in acapulco. Is that art?
Now, a 50 year old woman living in SF goes to Acapulco and takes 100 photos of different sorority girls.
Anyone see the difference? I believe art has a critical nature, a bias, a communicative aspect beyond what it "is".
That being said, there are good ideas and bad ideas. I tend to classify good and bad with the simple question, "So What?".
Silence is not art. But John Cage's piece is.
So What?
Let's not forget what the "silience" really is. It's not the absence of sound, it's the awareness of every single individual in the space that is being used for the performance, the almost painful awareness of the lack of "music" the rustling of nervous concertgoers in their stuffy chairs, the cough from the fat man in the back and the whisper of the platinum blond with her thousand dollar bag. I love how utterly site-specific this piece is. People might call it a gimmick, but John Cage pioneered this way of thinking about music. It certainly would be a gimmick however if done again.
|