I agree with both of you. And I'm not trying to disrespect Cage, whose work I
greatly admire. Just trying to put things in a certain perspective.
In a message dated 04/23/2000 1:13:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< > r
>
> Well, I do agree with you about Cage. I made the point recently to someone
that
> Cage was never the anarchist he claimed to be in all his interviews and
books.
> Real anarchy would have threatened his position as an artist. There were
certain
> admirable qualities Cage had though. For instance, during most of his
career he
> really lived hand-to-mouth and had to teach etc.. It wasn't til later in
his
> career that he became self-sufficient as an artist and then he adopted a
very
> strange attitude: he maintained a strict work-ethic. After all that talk
about
> how unemployment was the state of Budhhist enlightenment (which I believe
he got
> from Berlin Dada) , he proceeded to become a professional composer/aritist.
> Ironic, no?
>
> The reason I don't do my writing and art anonymously is that it has been
done to
> death and why make that sacrifice to cover old ground. I mean Duchamp said
"go
> underground" but it reflects such a cynical stance.
Look, don't let dead artists tell you how to live. If they didn't listen,
why should
you? Many artists, writers, musicians, I know found themselves forced into
unlivable
positions because they felt they had to adopt various purist postures that
had been
written about by various aesthetic heroes. This is nonsense. If your purpose
is to
make art, make it by any means necessary that are compatible with thinking
it and
doing it. Your life is singular.
>>
