If anyone knows what i'm talking about.. I got extremely pissed off at this kid who is most likely a freshman at the Center I attend for art and doesn't know what he's talking about and if he does then he should have projected better points or information to back his point up.

His case regarding John Cage's piece of silence:

" i dont think it is art or music sometimes people like mr cage come along and try to change something people bilt over probably thousands of years.Listening to bacgroung sound isn't music music or art it is when people run out of creativity and try to start a new trend."

He was arguing music isn't a form of art, and he was also arguing that John Cage's piece was even involved with music. It was involved with the idea that music was going to be played but alas it was not, but it was not a musical composition. It was a thought, a commentary, a work of performance art.

My reply to him:

"how is music not art? music is a creation of sounds rhythyms and or melodies that evoke emotion and inspiration from the human mind. it is impossible to honestly say and believe that music is not a form of art. what kind of music do you listen to? do you read lyrics? lyrics are a form of poetry, poetry is a form of literature, literature is a form of art. art is culture and culture is art, culture is based around the arts and music and tradition. why do you honestly think music isn't art? this piece by john cage wasn't even about music itself. it was about the lack thereof. the unknown. the silence that we all feel awkward about so we must create our own sounds to deny what creates our embarrassment. but what are we embarrassed of? nothing. just silence. to me, now that i think about it, it created insecurity within the audience. they didn't know what was happening and he evoked a reaction or emotion from each individual.
how does that make it NOT art?
agh. jesus.
i don't know. and how was john cage trying to change anything? he had an idea and went with it, just like every living, breathing human being does every moment of their life. when you have an idea, say, to take a step forward don't you do it? he wasn't changing anything he was just doing. it's not about reform it's just about what it is. and music is inanimate so it cannot be built, as well as silence, what the piece is about. nothing was built here, it was either combined or left blank. john cage had a mental canvas that he left blank (where musicians or artists feel they need to create something tangible or audible to provoke thought) to create a commentary on what i believe is the awkwardness of silence, because in reality there is no such thing. he definitely proved his theory true seeing as though once the crowd realized this was nothing but a piece of sheer silence they broke out into their own noise.
i'm done"

that kid pissed me off. Anyways, John Cage even commented on this and said "there is no such thing as silence, something is always happening that makes a sound."
For those of you who don't know, but most of you probably know, Cage walked out on stage in front of his audience, opened his piano like he was going to play, and just sat in front of it for four minutes and thirty three seconds. He proceeded to close his piano and walk off stage after the time was up.

Do you think it's art? And for some reason do you think it's music? I don't think it's a form of real music but a experiment with sound in spite of the idea of silence.
I think it was more of an experimental performance piece than anything.

i remember this was one of my firsts posts back at cmj. yes its art, but incredibly self indulgent tripe art.

It's real music, but it doesn't have a good beat and you can't dance to it.

Last time I checked, as a musician who reads notation, you have to play rests too.

http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/4-33/

if you look at the third image, which is the score, technically, the roman numerals represent each movement, and the word tacet is standard musical notation for rest.

Technically, it's music.

I prefer Shostakovitch.

Thank you. I had no idea of that. Of course I could have researched it more, but that was my take on it in general.

arguing what is and what isn't art is silly because anything anyone claims is art is art.

no arguing quality, that's a whole other ball of yarn.

But you can argue whether or not it is music.

However, the fact that it's notated is a strong argument for it being music.

Of course, it's music. Or, better, sound. And sound is music. All sound can be music.

I defer 100% to your musical knowledge and my 100% lack thereof, but does it become music just because of the notation? This is an oversimplified example, but if I bind a bunch of blank pages within a hardcover, does that mean it is literature? What if I mark it up with editor's notes?



But isn't it silence, which is the absence of sound or noise? Yes, I understand that rests are a part of music just as space is in design. But if you go to the craft store and buy blank canvas you aren't likely to go home and hang it on the wall as a finished piece of art.

I would you have to have the positive and the negative. They do not have to be equal, but don't both need to be present?

To me, the whole thing is a gimmick, and Cage didn't exactly create anything. If I were to lead you out to say, Washington and point out Mount Rainier on the landscape, I didn't create anything. I just showed you something that already existed.

where in his quote was he arguing music is not art?

I would say buy this person 'Silence' and let them read the essays and speeches in it to gain an understanding of what Cage meant. I agree with Jewels though, its a moot point. Cage and his thoughts aren't for everyone.

It's not silence. It catalyzes sound in its silence. That was part of its point. It was reactionary. It is devoid of instrumental sound, besides the opening and closing of the instrument, but it is filled with peripheral sound. A cough, a shuffle, un upturning of a noise, a catcall. It is not a finished piece in its silence, but by what accompanies it, like with your blank page analogy. Ambient music is very much imbued with the same principle. And it can be argued that silence is in fact sound, not necessarily the absence of it.

but you could.
and people have, and it hangs in museums.

But just because you can doesn't mean you should. It still rings as gimmicky to me.

EDIT: I don't mean for that to sound so curt.

But at what point does coincidental or accidental occurence become composition? Does the woman from Italy who interrupted the play over smoking on stage become a part of the greater work?

the first time it was an iteresting discussion. and that makes it worth while.
but to do it now is kind of silly.

but i think the first time anyone does something - even if its gimmicky, it's worthwhile if it spawns conversation.

Even Dennis Rodman? Or Britney Spears building a Nativity Scene in her house with her cracker spawn portraying the baby Jesus?

i got bored of both of these people, but they were fun for a while.

because of his retarded grammar and spelling i thought he said art isn't music. and because this person doesn't know how to formulate sentences in proper english i refuse to take back anything i said even if it is a mistake because it's their fault that they cannot write so that other human beings can comprehend what they say.

It's not really composition in the literal sense of the word. If audience participation, however incidental, is what comprises the sound of a piece, then perhaps filling the room with people is the act of composition along with the act of sitting down at the piano and "playing" the piece. It's a similar idea as process music, in which parameters are set, and allowed to play themselves out, without later interference from the musician. This is certainly composition, however loose, but is it performance? I say yes. Well, yesish.

Well, you can polish a turd, but you're just gonna get shit all over your hands.

This still sounds to me like it's defining art based on the author, rather than the subject matter. If some schmo off the street, or a homeless person had performed the same manuever, I doubt as many people would rush to defend the integrity of his statement.

At the same time, when you toss out the common definitions of "silence" and "composition" I have a hard time calling it "art".

So, then, let's follow convention.

I'm not saying it's brilliant. I don't think anyone is. It's not a turd either. People are still debating it. Thus, you can't deny its effectiveness.

well, part of it WAS that he was famous. The same way that it was a big deal that Duchamp put a toilet in a major gallery. He had to be famous to have that opportunity. And art is largley about context.

but i'm not defending John Cage. I think it's silly.