3 ms·
Experimental chefs can start fooling around with liquid nitrogen and re-purposed inkjet printers and meet with wild success, however. ;) A more substantive rep
by crux_ 17y ago
Experimental chefs can start fooling around with liquid nitrogen and re-purposed inkjet printers and meet with wild success, however. ;)
A more substantive reply: I question the entire underlying premise you have -- that entertainment or emotion are what makes art, art. Something can be entirely distasteful and still art. (Thought experiment: imagine a sonata so deeply heartbreaking that nobody can bear to listen to it more than once. One can't "develop a taste" for it, can they? But it's almost certainly art by most definitions.)
In any case, I don't think John Cage is having any trouble finding listeners, despite your opinion: http://www.johncage.info/index6.html http://www.johncage.info/index6.html
- habitue 17y agoYeah it's definitely not my premise that art = emotion + entertainment, that was the GP. I would, however, divide art into "art that is/can become enjoyable" and "art that cannot be enjoyable (but may be thought provoking etc)". I'm definitely not being fair to John Cage, I am far from well versed in his music and since he's an experimental artist I know his pieces have different levels of accessibility. I would group the 4'33" piece into the "interesting but not enjoyable as music" category.