>Yes. Or so he claimed. And made art out of Thoreau's writings etc. I'm just
>saying there's a difference between the naive anarchism of some so-called
>"cultural workers" and the actuality of political situations. The point I
made
>to my friend about Cage was "Sure, he was an anarchist, but only in the
>cultural sphere." What I meant was talking about "anarchy" and doing it are
two
>different things.
I see what you're saying and am inclined to agree. Cage was resolutely
anti-political -- or maybe you could say he embraced an anti-political
politics.
In this sense too, anarchism is defined by its attempt to get rid of the
state (ie. of the political sphere).
I think that's a great limitation in Cage, and in anarchism .... not to
mention even Marxism, which sees the elimination of the state as an ultimate
goal.
In another way though, Cage saw his work as very political in the sense of
working with the (power) relations between people (e.g., the people in an
orchestra). ... You'd be right to say that this is only in the cultural
sphere, but I guess Cage saw his work as possibly being a model for other
social relations.
>So, George, let me put this question to you. Do you think what Cage did
really
>changed the world for your garbageman?
>
Well, I've never discussed music or anything else for that matter with the
guy who picks up my garbage, but of course it would be safe to assume he's
never heard of Cage. We live in a class society and most people don't have
the luxury of receiving a musical education that would include avant-garde
art. ... Cage himself -- or no artist -- can change the class structure of
society through their work. The relations between classes is the product of
social and political struggle... ..Back to politics again.
cheers,
George
>
