5 Apr
2007
5 Apr
'07
8:30 p.m.
Dan Easley wrote:
On 4/5/07, david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I think you haven't heard a good performance of it.
I've never heard a performance of it at all, and don't feel a particular
need to hear it.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Actually,
no. The points are (more or less in the order of importance)
recontextualization of silence, exploration of indeterminacy, and
relinquishing the control over the creative process (which is to
some extent
an outgrowth of the second point).
The point was that Cage was too damn lazy or arrogant to create
anything, so he produced 4'33" of meaningless nothingness. The piece
reminds me of wide swathes of what passes for modern art in the painting
world, where the painting is accompanied by a densely-written, 3-5 page
explanation of the painting. Without the textual explanation, the
painting itself communicates NOTHING - no meaning, etc. (IMHO, this is a
sure sign that the work was funded by a grant.) As my artist-daughter
describes them, they're a "spot on the wall."