>
>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.
How so? Cage was an anarchist in the American individualist tradition of
Thoreau.
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..
Why is this admirable? ...Not that I don't think Cage was admirable, but
working can be admirable too, no?
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.
Art is a discipline.... Where's the contradiction between art and hard work?
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?
>
I don't remember seeing any glorification of unemployment in Cage's work.
.... apropos: enlightenment; it takes a lot of discipline to become
enlightened! How long did the Buddha sit under the tree at Bodhgaya?
>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.
>
Again, interestingly. Cage's works were filled with his signature.
Literally. Which was so beautiful.
What did Duchamp mean by "go underground"? relate art to life??? Where's the
cynicism?
just some questions....
cheers,
George
