Thread: Drawing Lines in Regards to Music and Non-Music

Originally Posted by pluhagr

Surely Cage was not lazy when composing, yes composing, 4'33". He thought about it and developed it for 5 years.

It took Cage five years to compose 4'33'' but it only took me five seconds to compose an opera titled "Two Hours and Forty Five minutes (not including intermissions)". I'm working on a Symphony cycle right now... all done!

Originally Posted by Conor71

You are talking about different levels of skill there which still implies that (some) skill is necessary in producing a work of art!

No no no. Skill is not requisite for art. Skill can be apart of art but is not necessary.

To bigshot: By my definition, which is about the audiences approval and admiration, an artwork of a three year old with no skill whatsoever could be liked as much as a painting by Picasso.

Originally Posted by pluhagr

Composers who are lazy don't compose! And it should be noted that Cage and other experimental composers are skilled. Their music just doesn't express that skill outwardly. I feel bad for those who think too much about skill in art. Art is not about skill it is about expression. Skill is just a good thing to have. I find you calling composers lazy extremely offensive, and you are so vague too. Which composers are lazy and how. Do you know them personally. Did you research them. Surely Cage was not lazy when composing, yes composing, 4'33". He thought about it and developed it for 5 years.

Next, an objective definition of art and music does not nor will ever exist. Only objective definitions exist. That is the nature of human existence.

I misspoke, I meant to say that only subjective definitions exist, that is the nature of human existence.

If we come to a consensus then the conversation is over with. I am fine having this debate and would like it to continue. What we should do is respect each other's opinions and views, and move on to discuss other things concerning these issues.

Originally Posted by pluhagr

By my definition, which is about the audiences approval and admiration, an artwork of a three year old with no skill whatsoever could be liked as much as a painting by Picasso.

By your definition LOL Cats are the highest form of art that ever existed. They are admired and approved of by countless people on Facebook every day.

Originally Posted by bigshot

It took Cage five years to compose 4'33'' but it only took me five seconds to compose an opera titled "Two Hours and Forty Five minutes (not including intermissions)". I'm working on a Symphony cycle right now... all done!

Comments like these are not contributing anything at all...

Originally Posted by pluhagr

No no no. Skill is not requisite for art. Skill can be apart of art but is not necessary.

To bigshot: By my definition, which is about the audiences approval and admiration, an artwork of a three year old with no skill whatsoever could be liked as much as a painting by Picasso.

Skill IS necessary - skill is required to wield a paintbrush or carve a statue. Bigshot has already made a good point that having a higher level of skill also increases your palette of expression.

To expand a bit on your discussion about Cage - would you still take 4.33' seriously as work of art if Joe Bloggs the plumber had composed it as opposed to John Cage the trained and skilled Musician?

Originally Posted by bigshot

By your definition LOL Cats are the highest form of art that ever existed. They are admired and approved of by countless people on Facebook every day.

Are they appreciated as art? I don't think so. By the way, we are going into extremes now which is never good.

Originally Posted by Conor71

Skill IS necessary - skill is required to wield a paintbrush or carve a statue. Bigshot has already made a good point that having a higher level of skill also increases your palette of expression.

To expand a bit on your discussion about Cage - would you still take 4.33' seriously as work of art if Joe Bloggs the plumber had composed it as opposed to John Cage the trained and skilled Musician?

Look, Cage was a skilled composer. But 4'33" was not a piece that took the skill of composition. Okay, skill helps immensely in art, but is not required.

Originally Posted by Conor71

Skill IS necessary - skill is required to wield a paintbrush or carve a statue. Bigshot has already made a good point that having a higher level of skill also increases your palette of expression.

To expand a bit on your discussion about Cage - would you still take 4.33' seriously as work of art if Joe Bloggs the plumber had composed it as opposed to John Cage the trained and skilled Musician?

In favour of Cage I would argue that it's not about the "musical" aspects of 4,33" but rather about its impact and meaning on music, or art in general.

Originally Posted by pluhagr

Comments like these are not contributing anything at all...

So creation of art doesn't depend on skill, but it does depend on the amount of time spent creating it? Or perhaps it's impossible to create art since it isn't art until someone perceives it as art? Or does it take a critical mass of people to recognize it as art before it becomes art? Is all art equal? John Cage's 4'33'' is as great as Michaelangelo's David or Picasso's Guernica? How can we teach art appreciation in school if everything is art and everything is equal?

Your arguments point straight down Alice's rabbit hole.

Originally Posted by Chrythes

I would argue that it's not about the "musical" aspects of 4,33" but rather about its impact and meaning on music, or art in general.

I would argue that the only impact it had was detrimental. The same way Andy Warhol's detrimental influence has led to Jeff Koons.

Originally Posted by bigshot

So creation of art doesn't depend on skill, but it does depend on the amount of time spent creating it? Or perhaps it's impossible to create art since it isn't art until someone perceives it as art? Or does it take a critical mass of people to recognize it as art before it becomes art? Is all art equal? John Cage's 4'33'' is as great as Michaelangelo's David or Picasso's Guernica? How can we teach art appreciation in school if everything is art and everything is equal?

Your arguments point straight down Alice's rabbit hole.

I am not trying to reach a conclusion here. I am merely discussing what art is. I myself am exploring this topic here. So yes, you could say that my arguments are going no where. I have no problem with that. And I truly doubt that 4'33" is detrimental. When you want to talk about detrimental music, look no further than some of the popular music that is produced now. If 4'33" did any damage to what music is it is very small since not many people outside the art and music world know about it.

This guy has no taste for good music. Here is his opinion on 4'33".

I disagree. The only case when there can be a detrimental effect on art is when it's prohibited, censured or controlled.
The only thing that Cage and Koons did was to create another niche in the infinite spectrum of art. It doesn't make it worse or better, it makes it more diverse. I find it interesting and I truly don't care how much of it is pretentious or not.
It's in our choice to listen, see and watch what we want - and the more to choose from we have, the better it is. The "post modernist laziness" as you refer to doesn't harm anyone, especially not art itself.
I suggest you try looking for composers and artists that match your definition of good art, instead of repeatedly insulting and being angry about what you can at least ignore.

Originally Posted by ComposerOfAvantGarde

This guy has no taste for good music. Here is his opinion on 4'33".

This brings up a wonderful notion about 4'33". I think that it is wonderful that his piece angered and roused so many people. This kind of a piece gives way to wonderful passionate discussions.