From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: JOHN CAGE
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:14:55 GMT

In article <BtEuun.10A@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.233314.21999@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <BtCt61.BA8@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>In article <c1JuPB3w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> kevin@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Kevin Scott) writes:

>>>>Music and philosophy are a bad mix.

>>>Interesting...that's a philosophical statement itself!  Do you really think
>>>that aesthetics is a worthless branch of philosophy?

>>The sentence you sneer at has been taken out of context, of course;
>>Kevin doesn't like music that itself embodies or attempts to advance
>>some philosophy, as you damn well know, or would if you bothered to read
>>instead of just kneejerking.

>That wasn't how I read it, but even under your interpretation of the comment,
>ANY piece of music must express SOME sort of philosophical idea because it
>is a selective set of sounds.

So?  IS that why we listen?  Because of the philosophical idea?  Some of
us listen for the sounds.

>  Is it beautiful or ugly?  

To whom?  I have no idea whether it's beautiful to you, or to someone
else.  The piece has no control over my opinion of it.

>Is it complex or simple? 

Again, in what sense?  To whom?  Some people find Mozart too simple; to
me, he's often too complex.  To me, many *Cage* pieces are too complex
to listen to at times.

> Can one make sense out of it or not?

That's *certainly* not something the piece has within it.  That's up to
the individual, and as you know, different individuals will make
different things of the same piece.

>  The artist must choose
>what he is doing and there fore must at least implicitly reveal something
>about his view of the world.  

What has this necessarily to do with my enjoyment or appreciation of the
piece?  After all, the world has changed quite a bit, too, since my
favorite pieces were written; why does the artist's view of his or her
world way back then matter much to me here and now?

>He may reveal this well or poorly, but it is of necessity there. 

Of necessity to what?  

> Even making no choice of sounds (as Cage did) 

*sigh* as Cage in most of his pieces did *not*...

>is a choice and says something about what he thinks about the world.

Yet your various attempts to determine what that is hav ebeen shown to
be entirely at variance with what Cage actually said.  Could it be that
we're not very good at guessing a person's world-view from a piece of
their music? Could it be that such activity is not all that important to
appreciating art? After all, I don't hear most people engaging in such
guessing games, or worrying about the world-view of someone who may be
long-dead or far-away, and who has merely specified a set of tones to be
played in a certain way, sor something like that.

>>>If nothing else, a study of philosophy as it relates to art will explain
>>>why it is that people have such radically different ideas of what art is
>>>and what the difference between good art and bad art are.  

>>"If nothing else" is wrong; most studies will *not* show that.  At best
>>they will point up the contexts in which "good art" and "Bad art" can
>>even have meaning.

>OK, how can YOU explain why it is that our views are different?  Do you

Because we seek different things from art.  

>think it's purely a case of stupidity on my part, or do you think
>we disagree on some pretty fundamental philosophical points?  

I *know* we disagree on many philosphical points.  For one thing, I
consider the sentence

"A car with square wheels is wrong"

To be nonsense.

>As I see it,
>you are a pretty consistent exponent of a set of philosophical ideas 
>quite different from my own, and those differences (rather than overt
>stupidity or evil intent) are the source of our disagreement.

Perhaps.  That's fine with me, in principle -- but your (ab)use of your
philosophy to hurl invective -- often based on flat-out misinformation
-- about people you don't know much about strikes me as silly at best,
and not worth dignifying as philosophical discourse.  

That's the problem.  I'm always willing to tackle questions with
examples, or argue about a set of principles or statements about thisor
that; but I like to keep the argument going in a way that addresses
points as they're made, and doesn't ignore the sticky ones.  You
yourself complained that I kept asking about the metaphysics of
instrumental music -- and collectec a list of the questions.  

But you never came up with the answer to even one of them!  And by doing
so, you rendered your claim that one could indeed do so suspect.

>Not only can aesthetic theories explain what is/isn't art and what is/isn't
>good art, 

Only with reference to their principles, which are generally highly
specific to this or that situation or context or culture.

>but they can point to the fundamental differences in the reasons
>for disagreements about these issues.  Just as an example, I suspect that
>based on your aesthetic conclusions that reason unsullied by emotional
>influences cannot ultimately justify any conclusions of value or morality,
>right?  

Huh?  I'm missing the main clause.  All I see is a qualifying clause
followed by a comma and "right?"  On the other hand, that doesn't strike
me as an esthetic conclusion in the qualifying clause, nor do I conclude
that.  You've lost me completely.

Roger