|
John Cage - 4'33" (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| :stongue: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Cage "composed" it, but he would have no idea what it sounded like each time. I think it's just a bit of semantic pedantry to call it music. Any sound can produce an emotional response- whether it's birdsong, a baby crying or an alarm clock going off infinitely. By that definition, if I tapped irregularly on a table edge to irritate someone, I'm performing music. The only difference is the context, and that shows how hollow modern art can be- it is often affirmed merely by its context. People will actually think about what something has to say artistically simply because they've paid to see it and think about it in that way. It's almost an art prank in itself. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: |
Originally posted by thoughtlessjex
Pisses you off, doesn't it? |
Yes, and some people do (as well as make you feel happy and sad...) and i can assure you that they don't perform art of any sorts!
| quote: |
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Cage "composed" it, but he would have no idea what it sounded like each time. I think it's just a bit of semantic pedantry to call it music. Any sound can produce an emotional response- whether it's birdsong, a baby crying or an alarm clock going off infinitely. By that definition, if I tapped irregularly on a table edge to irritate someone, I'm performing music. The only difference is the context, and that shows how hollow modern art can be- it is often affirmed merely by its context. People will actually think about what something has to say artistically simply because they've paid to see it and think about it in that way. It's almost an art prank in itself. |
Exactly, very well put. If someones simply says that he/she performs "art",and he puts his creations in a certain context, which in turn is well supported and hyped by some related higher institution or authority (e.g. a famous art-critic, or another artist)could simply directly influence the ignorant. People who are simply exposed to that context (and who don't know whats the difference between baroque and romanticism), would tend to believe it and suppport it. In the end they will praise it as the "next big thing", which is "full of ideas", is "groundbreaking" and evokes "strong emotions"... |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Yes, and some people do (as well as make you feel happy and sad...) and i can assure you that they don't perform art of any sorts! |
Why can't people themselves be works of art? There are even aesthetically pleasing humans out there, so it's not like humans fail in that regard. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by thoughtlessjex
Why can't people themselves be works of art? There are even aesthetically pleasing humans out there, so it's not like humans fail in that regard. |
Because then you're well on the way to making "art" a redundant term. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Is a spoonful of peanut butter music? What genre does it fall under? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Or how about the sounds made by somebody eating a peanut butter sandwich? Is that music? |
|
|
| tranceDJ |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Or how about the sounds made by somebody eating a peanut butter sandwich? Is that music? |
Whatever "music" is is up to the listener. If someone wants to listen to someone eating and call it music, well then it's music. There's no concrete all-encompassing definition to music, or any art for that matter. It comes down to what the individual sees (or doesn't see) in the art itself. The meaning of the art (which would include having the opinion that something isn't art) is all a product of the individual observing, hearing, etc. it.
At the time Cage first performed his 4'33" piece, I feel like so many people had developed the basic notion of what music is. They thought it had to be notes played by an instrument. Cage challenged this, he challenged people to the question of what really music is. Music is whatever you make it, whether you think it's a piano playing or you can hear the beauty of the sound of a train out in the distance. Truth is, no one really "invented" music, it's been there all along. We only discovered it and it will continually change and evolve throughout time and will outlive the human race as a whole. |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Because then you're well on the way to making "art" a redundant term. |
Don't look at me. I've never done it, but I doubt that means no one has. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceDJ
Whatever "music" is is up to the listener. If someone wants to listen to someone eating and call it music, well then it's music. There's no concrete all-encompassing definition to music, or any art for that matter. It comes down to what the individual sees (or doesn't see) in the art itself. The meaning of the art (which would include having the opinion that something isn't art) is all a product of the individual observing, hearing, etc. it.
At the time Cage first performed his 4'33" piece, I feel like so many people had developed the basic notion of what music is. They thought it had to be notes played by an instrument. Cage challenged this, he challenged people to the question of what really music is. Music is whatever you make it, whether you think it's a piano playing or you can hear the beauty of the sound of a train out in the distance. Truth is, no one really "invented" music, it's been there all along. We only discovered it and it will continually change and evolve throughout time and will outlive the human race as a whole. |
Nice post! |
|
|
| PETRAN |
I forgot about that thread and i just noticed the responses...sorry. Anyway here we go.
| quote: | Originally posted by thoughtlessjex
Why can't people themselves be works of art? There are even aesthetically pleasing humans out there, so it's not like humans fail in that regard. |
Thats my criteria for something to be art...
1)It must involve some kind of conscious creation (people as you said fail this criterion because they were automatically created by DNA "programs".)
2) It must involve some aesthetic quality, be it good or bad, positive or negative, dark or lightfull.
3)It has to express or symbolise something. Thats why art is performed in the first place. Its like an external representation (painting,music bla bla bla) of an internal representation (a thought, a feeling, an "image"-auditory, visual, tactile etc.)that for some (posibly affective-emotional) reason desperately needs to get out of one's mind.
Things that miss any of these three are not considered "ART" IMO and this is what most people think about art anyway (i think).
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceDJ
Whatever "music" is is up to the listener. If someone wants to listen to someone eating and call it music, well then it's music. There's no concrete all-encompassing definition to music, or any art for that matter. It comes down to what the individual sees (or doesn't see) in the art itself. The meaning of the art (which would include having the opinion that something isn't art) is all a product of the individual observing, hearing, etc. it.
At the time Cage first performed his 4'33" piece, I feel like so many people had developed the basic notion of what music is. They thought it had to be notes played by an instrument. Cage challenged this, he challenged people to the question of what really music is. Music is whatever you make it, whether you think it's a piano playing or you can hear the beauty of the sound of a train out in the distance. Truth is, no one really "invented" music, it's been there all along. We only discovered it and it will continually change and evolve throughout time and will outlive the human race as a whole.
|
The way you put it, its like there is no difference between music, noise and silence. THERE IS or else we wouldn't have three different words for them. These phenomenological notions of music as "what you think is what you get" are driven by modern-20th century (existential-phenomenological) philosophy and are totally wrong IMO since they distort what music IS in the first place. Not only that but makes anyone a potential artist and potential musician since talking, knocking on one's door and cleaning with the hoover-cleaner are all potential music-pieces. Which they aren't. And anyway they fail to pass the three statements i made before of what potentialy can constitute art and music (and Cage failed to create anything at all!).
According to wikipedia:
Music is an art form that involves organized and audible sounds and silence. It is expressed in terms of pitch (which includes melody and harmony), rhythm (which includes tempo and meter), and the quality of sound (which includes timbre, articulation, dynamics, and texture). Music may also involve generative forms in time through the construction of patterns and combinations of natural stimuli, principally sound. Music may be used for artistic or aesthetic, communicative, entertainment, or ceremonial purposes. The definition of what constitutes music varies according to culture and social context.
This last phrase is driven by 20th century modern notions and i don't think that every-one agrees with it. Its not strange that every cultire in the world makes and listens to music the way music is defined by wikipedia. Not a single tribe have called silence or the roaring of the tiger as music. These primitive universals must therefore express the deeper notion of music something that these modern pseudo-abstract notions clearly fail IMO. |
|
|
|
|
