Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site uwvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!uwvax!anderson
From: anderson@uwvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: In defense of John Cage
Message-ID: <240@uwvax.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 3-May-84 00:59:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwvax.240
Posted: Thu May  3 00:59:17 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 03:12:30 EDT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 38

---------
>Pure sound is what comes from natural circumstances.  If you want pure
>sound devoid of "human" expressive and intellectual manipulation,
>go to a game preserve.
>
>Art is by its very nature the expressive and intellectual manipulation of
>sensory media BY HUMAN BEINGS.  It is not a part of what some would call
>"the natural order of things", it is an expressive attempt to create
>a new order of things.  To choose to negate human intervention is to negate
>art itself.
[R. ROSEN]

I disagree.  I don't want to get caught trying to define "art", but I
don't think that it can be restricted to the process by which an "artist"
conveys his/her emotions, thoughts, etc.  This sort of noble, posturing
involvement, typified equally by the 19th century romantics and by
MTV, is what Cage is (over-)reacting against.

To understand Cage you have to understand Buddhism, which (grossly
oversimplified) says that the cause/effect process which governs
our thoughts the same as the process that governs everything, and that
the main barrier to fully knowing this is the desire for personal
glorification.  The human reasoning process is seen as a hinderance,
rather than an aid, to understanding.  An immediate consequence of this
is that human-produced "music" is no different or better than any
naturally-occuring sound (or silence).

I personally don't buy the Buddhist ideas, and I agree that Cage's music
is best relegated to some background role.  But I don't think he's a
charlatan (strongly recommended reading: "Silence" and "A Year from Monday"
by Cage) and I don't think human involvement is a prerequisite for art.
My own work with computer music has produced some beautiful results
in which I was involved as programmer, but definitely not as artist.
Where did the art come from then?  From the random number routine,
from the chips, it doesn't matter.  Same principle as Cage, but
more pleasing to the ear.

David P. Anderson (anderson@uwvax)