Re: stillness capture

From: Armando Menicacci (armando@noos.fr)
Date: 11/15/01


Hello (again)
as a suite to my last mail I have to add that I doubt about the 
relevance about the implicit comparison that is made (stillness is to 
movement what silence is to music) because even a corpse is moving. 
(the process of being eaten by worms lead to a certain movement of 
the body parts).

Cage's 4' 33" is not a silence piece. The score says that there's no 
intentional sound produced by tha musician, but I have a CD 
(authorized by Cage) with a version of the composition that has a 
persistent unmodulated electronic sound. Cage's intent is to prove 
that there's no silence possible. His experience in the anechoic 
chamber proves it.

Same thing with movement: in zen meditation you don't have to move, 
but you do (and also you breathe). Even a standing person has an 
arrested movement because he's avoiding to fall.

And it is true what peter says that stillness captures perception a 
lot, that's because stillness is also oriented (inside, outside, 
bottom-uo or top-down) so, tha lack of content issue seems strange to 
me because there's always a tension between a body and an 
environnement that takes the audience (in any condition and 
circumstance) to a perceptual categorization, to a meaning statement 
and interpretation I supose.

>I would hesitate to say that Cage was "explicitly" political with 4'33" or
>really any other piece. There were/are political implications from these
>works to be sure, but for Cage, 4'33" was the result of a highly refined and
>closely followed compositional process in which he was attempting to
>distance himself and his ego from the choices made. I must obviously agree
>that political statements were made, however. 4'33" certainly forever
>changed the music world, and also touched on many other issues in art and
>culture (see Jonathan Katz's "John Cage's Queer Silence"). Too often though,
>Cage's political/philosophical contributions overshadow the fact that his
>compositional process is what led him to these pieces. Furthermore the
>pieces themselves have great musical value that is sometimes overlooked.
>
>A couple of other points that might be thrown into the mix: It was
>Rauschenberg's white paintings that finally led Cage to 4'33", as Cage
>discusses in his book, Silence (interestingly enough, just before the
>Lecture on Nothing section.) Also,  4'33" was successful because of the
>attention it was given in composition and performance. It is a very
>structured work in three movements, and was premiered by Cage's long-time
>collaborator, pianist David Tudor, who took the work very seriously.
>
>Lastly, since our ears hear sound from all angles around us, I would argue
>that our ability to attend to "other" sounds in a performance space is
>greater than our ability to attend to other (off-stage) visual stimuli. A
>performer on stage is in such control of an audience's attention, that it
>seems a bit difficult to imagine that performer's stillness allowing the
>audience to attend all other stimuli in the space, as they could perhaps do
>with sound. Stillness on stage often (for me, at least) demands even more
>focused visual attention of the audience. Of course, this presupposes an
>on-stage performance, and these issues would be different for site-specific
>work.
>
>Anyway, I have nothing to say and I am saying it...
>
>
>Best,
>
>Peter


-- 
___________
Armando



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02