3 ms·

What good does this work of Cage bring the world? Most people think it is uninteresting and a total waste of time. I can also understand the aggression a lot

What good does this work of Cage bring the world? Most people think it is uninteresting and a total waste of time. I can also understand the aggression a lot of Cage's work got in the past. It's very destructive for people to listen a long time to a man who is only speaking letters. Almost like torture. Is a waste of time art?

Bud 4y ago
I think the best response to your claim that "most people" find Cage uninteresting is this book intro that e. e. cummings wrote. He had a few things to say about "mostpeople": https://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/introduction-from-new-poems/ https://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/introduction-...
vlunkr 4y ago
IMO the point is to question the limits of what can be considered music. There's precedent (way too much in fact) in visual arts. Is a signed toilet art? Mona Lisa with a mustache? Banana taped to a wall? None of these things are meant to be enjoyed in the traditional sense. But they might make you think, or make you angry. So what good do these things bring the world? I don't know, probably none.
Honga 4y ago
It's not the job of the work to bring good to the world, nor to interest people in the slightest, as can be said for yourself, or myself. Though you're right that the success of the work is probably intrinsically tied to it's interest. Art, and media in general are productions of culture which celebrate our humanity. That is, they rejoice in all of our abilities to perceive, conceive and enact upon the world. Wasting people's time in this light makes people aware of their time, and allows for further interrogations of our humanities to arise. Just as we're doing now. It's good to remember that art only gains it's status through a production being named art by an exhibitor. IMO there's no special purpose to the term. Consuming art is just another form of recreation, and people are right to hate it for any reason, just that tyranny of what is useful is usually not in the human spirits best interest.

Bud 4y ago

I think the best response to your claim that "most people" find Cage uninteresting is this book intro that e. e. cummings wrote. He had a few things to say about "mostpeople": https://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/introduction-from-new-poems/ https://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/introduction-...

vlunkr 4y ago

IMO the point is to question the limits of what can be considered music. There's precedent (way too much in fact) in visual arts. Is a signed toilet art? Mona Lisa with a mustache? Banana taped to a wall? None of these things are meant to be enjoyed in the traditional sense. But they might make you think, or make you angry. So what good do these things bring the world? I don't know, probably none.

Honga 4y ago

It's not the job of the work to bring good to the world, nor to interest people in the slightest, as can be said for yourself, or myself. Though you're right that the success of the work is probably intrinsically tied to it's interest. Art, and media in general are productions of culture which celebrate our humanity. That is, they rejoice in all of our abilities to perceive, conceive and enact upon the world. Wasting people's time in this light makes people aware of their time, and allows for further interrogations of our humanities to arise. Just as we're doing now. It's good to remember that art only gains it's status through a production being named art by an exhibitor. IMO there's no special purpose to the term. Consuming art is just another form of recreation, and people are right to hate it for any reason, just that tyranny of what is useful is usually not in the human spirits best interest.