>Of course, I'm not a Fluxus poet, and I rather like seeing the persona of
the
>writer expressed.
I don't see Cage's work as "depersonalization", in the sense of eliminating
personality. ...what would that end up being? Nihilism. And Cage was by no
means a nihilist.
I think what he's working with -- both from his connection with Buddhism,
but also with Western traditions of aesthetics -- is a bigger conception of
mind. Non-expression is not the abscence of expression, but an activity that
allows things to manifest in a completely free or absolute way (not
subjected to the pre-conceived intentions of the artist).
In Cage's work we always hear his voice ;-) ! Literally, reading. All his
works are distinctively "his", because he is part of the condition of their
realization. But their realization comes from somewhere else... He created
situations in which we could hear. In which he could participate too as a
member of the audience.
...don't know if I'm making myself clear here.
I don't fully understand the other position, but I see
>capitalism as one big effort to wipe out the human voice and eccentric
(read
>non-commodified) persona and replace it with manufactured voices or, worse,
>no voice except the "voice" of the commodity.
Cage's work is the antithesis of "commodification" or commercialization of
poetry or music, so I don't see a parallel in that sense. However, Cage was
very interested in modern technology and sought to use it for artistic (and
noncommercial) purposes.
When I think of all the
>beautiful voices of the poets I've read in my life, I shiver to think of a
>world where this kind of poetry did not exist, where poetry becomes only a
>trick of language and not an expression of human experience or vision.
>
What is a voice? ... I think what Cage was against was the habitual voice.
He wanted to transform speaking, music.
>What is the prejudice against expression? Perhaps someone can explain.
>
Its not a prejudice, but a considered criticism of traditional notions of
artistic expression. At the same time, it is also consistent with some
traditional ideas of expression. ...for example, artists have often talked
about how they didn't actually create the work, but were somehow a vehicle
for its realization...
>I know people fear sentimental manipulation (which I consider poetic
>obesity), just as I fear the poem devoid of the human touch (which I
consider
>poetic anorexia). Personally, I love the persona. Besides, underneath the
>poem, or beside it, over it or through it, is indeed the persona that
created
>it . . . and isn't literature (and art) in general just an excuse to reveal
>one's psychic guts and vision to a reader (futile as that desire might be)?
>Even the desire to hide the persona reveals such. Of course, this is a big
>world and there's always room for both. But personaly speaking . . .
>
I think Cage's work was more a practice of working on who he was. In this
sense, it was intensely personal. His works are filled with his life and his
life filled with his work. From the moment he would get up in the morning
and water his plants..... All part of his musics.
thanks BP!
George
