ABOUT JOHN CAGE 4'33"
The same question I asked you to answer in the assignment for April 3:
Here, keep it brief. The context is different: instead of presenting your ideas to me, you are in a conversation with your classmates. Different audience, different strategy.
Your goal is to get as many POSITIVE replies as possible. What do you "have" to write in order to be "liked"? What will you say and how will you say it?
Answer:
is it art?
Is it a different concept of music?
Or, could it be 'theater' (like mime theater?)
Or is it joke and every pseudo-sophisto-intellectual that tries to
explain it with grandiose words is just a sucker?
I definitely do not think this is music. Music to me is something that I can listen to and enjoy or not enjoy, but it is something that is given and received by the audience in an active way. This representation was something that was given to me but I received absolutely nothing from it. If I had to, I would put it in the genre of theater mainly because it was a spectacle for the audience to behold. To be honest, towards the end, especially when the audience began to clap, I was actually upset – wondering what in the world there was to clap about! I am usually a pretty open minded person but this just threw me for a loop. I saw no value in this at all and felt bad for those who actually paid money to see this.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Yasmin, I also do not believe that I would consider Cage's work to be "music". I also agree with her point that music is given and received in an active way by the audience.I do believe that what Cage was doing was trying to portray simple sounds that we would not normally consider to be music, to be artwork. Although some may have a hard time agreeing that Cage's work is actual "art", I would recommend looking up the work of Duchamp and how simplistic everyday items could be skewed to present artwork to the audiences.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Yasmin and Sydney here, in that I just cannot bring myself to seriously consider Cage's work as one of music. In fact, it almost seems like an insult of sorts, a parody poking fun at the
ReplyDeletehigh culture" that surrounded music at the time. If we accept the context of music in the Early/mid 20th C as an element ascribed to the upper class (until folklorists like Pete Seeger and Bob Dylan broke that notion), then we can view this piece as a parody pointing fingers at the "sophistication" necessary to make music believed by the general society at the time. As a satire, we can consider this an art form.
However, I feel that it cannot be labeled music in any way, shape, or form: I wasted many hours during my high school years playing bass guitar in a (lackluster) rock band, and I know that creating any kind of music with any type of instrument requires skill, dedication, and time. John Cage's 4'33'' simply seemed to have none of that, which angered me at first when I realized what Yasmin pointed out, in that people actually payed to listen to silence. Thinking it through, however, I noticed the possible satirical angle, and in that sense it seems to be a work of "art."
I actually had learned about this piece in a music course last semester and like Yasmin, Sydney, and Brandon I had been very set on the idea that 4'33" could definitely not be considered music. After a class discussion about it, a student suggested how the audience's interaction during the performance was the music. Basically meaning that any noise in the audience, such as coughing, moving around, etc was considered the music during this piece. Although that suggestion is hard to wrap my head around, it is still pretty interesting and made me more open minded to the idea. Although I do not personally like this piece of work and find it too eccentric for my liking, art is interpreted by the viewer or listener, therefore everyone has their own interpretation of what they consider art or music and the question cannot be answered generally.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching John Cage’s 4’33, I was very confused. To be honest, I thought the speakers to my laptop had broke. I was expecting a musical performance, instead I found myself watching 5 minutes of silence and a man staring at a keyboard.
ReplyDeleteI do not see this as art work or theater work in any way. I was mostly surprised by the round of applause Cage received at the end of his “performance”. It didn't make sense to me how he received such an applause when he just sat there and did nothing. I also do not see this as a different concept of music because music requires actually listening to something. To me, John Cage’s video of 4’33 was nothing more than a joke.
After watching John Cage's video, Initially I was confused as to how long that would go on for, the silent. But eventually it was evident that he was making some kind of statement with silence and gestures. Although I did not grasp entirely the message being given, it gave a sense of power, and respect especially after how the audience applaud him.
ReplyDeleteI believe John Cages' video of 4'33 is a form of art. My initial reaction was confusion, then laughter. I then decided to re -watch the video and try to decipher it. The beginning scene was of John preparing himself to play. I too, play the piano and when preparing to perform, I first, compose myself for a few minutes. Then he raises his right hand dramatically from 13 seconds to 1 minutes and 50 seconds. He throughout this time continues to raise it slowly. From 2:05 to 4:10, he has it half way raised. Lastly at 4:20, he does a conductive flowing gesture while keeping his arm raised, before concluding at 5:20. What I enjoyed from this video was the fact that the audience did not have side conversations during his performance.
ReplyDeleteI see this as an art form more than music.
I agree with the others that say it is not music, but I would also add that even though that is the case, it is still art. His absence of playing provokes thought and makes you wonder about its significance in a way that a "normal" art piece would not.
ReplyDeleteI actually just recently spoke about this piece of music in my music class a couple of weeks ago. I am not the type of person to think “everything is art”, but I do think that this piece of music is art. Anything can be music if you give it a title. My music professor was explaining to my class that the meaning John Cage had behind this piece was that nature was the song. The sound of the people in the crowd moving, the sniffling of the guy next to you, the heavy breathing of the usher. John Cage wanted to take four minutes and thirty three seconds of nature and turn it into a piece of music. Which to me, is art.
ReplyDeletethis is very interestinh. thru my research i also read about these information that you were given by your professor.
DeleteFor me personally this not a music. Even though I have no education in music I thinks this was more of a spectacle of what artist wanted to show to audience. In the beginning I thought he is getting energy from his notes and piano so music that he will play will be great because he interacted with instrument and connected to it. But at the end I was confused that there was nothing that I expected. All of his movements was like a part of some show. I think there is some message to this but I could not understand that, whereas audience I think understood that because they started to clap. For me it was something new.
ReplyDelete