Frankly, I don't see any chance operations in John Cage's work
either. He tried many different things as I did, and in that sense,
yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways – hazard of the
dice, right? – and rejected almost all of them. He dipped
toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page and threw dice and
put notations as to whether those were whole notes, quarter notes,
eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw most of it away. And
when he found something that he liked, he kept it. "Liked" would be
too small a word. When he found something that seemed from his soul
that he could respond to it, and be in charge of it therefore, and
sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it seems the same way to me;
that's the way I work.
- stan brakhage, 1996
_
portrait of the artist as a young editor
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Brakhage was a genius and I revere him.
He's totally wrong here on Cage though, Curt - there's
actually no evidence at all that Cage ever did filter
his random operations through anything so mundane as
his hearing and the application of any conscious
judgement, except his commitment to the random.
Arnold Schoenberg said of him "John Cage is not a
composer but an inventor, of genius" & people have got
so used to quoting that as if implied an endorsement
by one trailblazer for another that they miss the
sting in its tail.
I think he was an interesting guy but, a bit like
Duchamp, please spare me the epigones, especially the
third generation ones!
best
michael
— Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frankly, I don't see any chance operations in John
> Cage's work
> either. He tried many different things as I did,
> and in that sense,
> yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways –
> hazard of the
> dice, right? – and rejected almost all of them. He
> dipped
> toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page and
> threw dice and
> put notations as to whether those were whole notes,
> quarter notes,
> eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw most of
> it away. And
> when he found something that he liked, he kept it.
> "Liked" would be
> too small a word. When he found something that
> seemed from his soul
> that he could respond to it, and be in charge of it
> therefore, and
> sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it seems
> the same way to me;
> that's the way I work.
>
> - stan brakhage, 1996
>
> _
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
I trust you are correct. I'm less interested in Cage here as in the
idea that Brakhage is attributing to him. In the same interview,
Brakhage relates an incident where Pollock cusses a bunch of critics
who imply that Pollock's work was produced by chance operations.
I personally get more out of Brakhage's actual output/work than
either Pollock's or Cage's, which makes me interested in his process.
What he's saying below seems particularly applicable to contemporary
generative art, which is why I posted it. Critics and theorists tout
the idea of the beauty of randomness, but ask lia or golan levin or
josh davis or anyone who is hands-on coding generative art, and I
believe they will side more with brakhange on the issue. Josh Davis
is currently developing software that analyzes the semi-random
iterations that his generative software produces, and harvesting the
iterations most likely to aesthetically appeal to him. Portrait of
the artist as meta-editor.
At 11:54 AM -0700 6/18/04, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>Brakhage was a genius and I revere him.
>He's totally wrong here on Cage though, Curt - there's
>actually no evidence at all that Cage ever did filter
>his random operations through anything so mundane as
>his hearing and the application of any conscious
>judgement, except his commitment to the random.
>Arnold Schoenberg said of him "John Cage is not a
>composer but an inventor, of genius" & people have got
>so used to quoting that as if implied an endorsement
>by one trailblazer for another that they miss the
>sting in its tail.
>I think he was an interesting guy but, a bit like
>Duchamp, please spare me the epigones, especially the
>third generation ones!
>best
>michael
>
>
>— Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Frankly, I don't see any chance operations in John
>> Cage's work
>> either. He tried many different things as I did,
>> and in that sense,
>> yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways –
>> hazard of the
>> dice, right? – and rejected almost all of them. He
>> dipped
>> toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page and
>> threw dice and
>> put notations as to whether those were whole notes,
>> quarter notes,
>> eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw most of
>> it away. And
>> when he found something that he liked, he kept it.
>> "Liked" would be
>> too small a word. When he found something that
>> seemed from his soul
>> that he could respond to it, and be in charge of it
>> therefore, and
>> sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it seems
>> the same way to me;
>> that's the way I work.
>>
>> - stan brakhage, 1996
>>
>> _
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>> open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
>> out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
yes -I should have been more explicit in following
through -I too much prefer the Brakhage position.
His mistaken attribution of his own position to Cage
is quite interesting though in terms of artistic
psychology.
I can't imagine making work without chance playing a
big role in the process ( in fact any artist who
denies this is almost certainly lying) - but equally I
can't imagine wanting to give in to it.
Cage's mission strikes me as an essentially religious
rather than artistic one ( and I do know they can
coincide, but with Cage the art comes a poor second.)
He seems to have been a thoroughly decent and likable
person but I suspect he probably inadvertantly caused
the creation of more deeply trite and worthless art
than anyone except for Duchamp.
I bought a copy of the "by Brakhage" double DVD a
couple of months or so ago and I allow myself little
shots of it at the end of the day, rather as I did
with Malt Whisky or Grappa in my drinking days. It has
a similar warming and stimulant effect except I wake
up with a clearer head.
best
michael
— Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
> I trust you are correct. I'm less interested in
> Cage here as in the
> idea that Brakhage is attributing to him. In the
> same interview,
> Brakhage relates an incident where Pollock cusses a
> bunch of critics
> who imply that Pollock's work was produced by chance
> operations.
>
> I personally get more out of Brakhage's actual
> output/work than
> either Pollock's or Cage's, which makes me
> interested in his process.
> What he's saying below seems particularly applicable
> to contemporary
> generative art, which is why I posted it. Critics
> and theorists tout
> the idea of the beauty of randomness, but ask lia or
> golan levin or
> josh davis or anyone who is hands-on coding
> generative art, and I
> believe they will side more with brakhange on the
> issue. Josh Davis
> is currently developing software that analyzes the
> semi-random
> iterations that his generative software produces,
> and harvesting the
> iterations most likely to aesthetically appeal to
> him. Portrait of
> the artist as meta-editor.
>
>
>
> At 11:54 AM -0700 6/18/04, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >Brakhage was a genius and I revere him.
> >He's totally wrong here on Cage though, Curt -
> there's
> >actually no evidence at all that Cage ever did
> filter
> >his random operations through anything so mundane
> as
> >his hearing and the application of any conscious
> >judgement, except his commitment to the random.
> >Arnold Schoenberg said of him "John Cage is not a
> >composer but an inventor, of genius" & people have
> got
> >so used to quoting that as if implied an
> endorsement
> >by one trailblazer for another that they miss the
> >sting in its tail.
> >I think he was an interesting guy but, a bit like
> >Duchamp, please spare me the epigones, especially
> the
> >third generation ones!
> >best
> >michael
> >
> >
> >— Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Frankly, I don't see any chance operations in
> John
> >> Cage's work
> >> either. He tried many different things as I
> did,
> >> and in that sense,
> >> yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways
> –
> >> hazard of the
> >> dice, right? – and rejected almost all of them.
> He
> >> dipped
> >> toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page
> and
> >> threw dice and
> >> put notations as to whether those were whole
> notes,
> >> quarter notes,
> >> eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw
> most of
> >> it away. And
> >> when he found something that he liked, he kept
> it.
> >> "Liked" would be
> >> too small a word. When he found something that
> >> seemed from his soul
> >> that he could respond to it, and be in charge of
> it
> >> therefore, and
> >> sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it
> seems
> >> the same way to me;
> >> that's the way I work.
> >>
> >> - stan brakhage, 1996
> >>
> >> _
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> >> open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set
> >> out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
>
>
i've been making my way through the same collection in a similar
fashion (the quote is from the DVD interview). It's been interesting
trying to relocate where I left off during the longer ones. "I think
it was after the second series of blue warping trees but before the
first pumping heart collage." The fact that it's even possible
attests to the underlying narrative structure of the work.
>I bought a copy of the "by Brakhage" double DVD a
>couple of months or so ago and I allow myself little
>shots of it at the end of the day, rather as I did
>with Malt Whisky or Grappa in my drinking days. It has
>a similar warming and stimulant effect except I wake
>up with a clearer head.