[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but my culture wants to be plural.
RA
>
> >>
