Cages influence and Interpretation

Reading about HPSCHD was enlightening in more ways than one. I was particularly struck by Cage's relationship to Marshall McLuhan. I knew his work from high school, when I read The Gutenberg Galaxy. Discussing Cage's philosophy was a basic parroting of the themes I had learned from that work, it was interesting to see that philosophy come to light.

McLuhan discusses how the printing press re-invented mankind by delivering information to the masses at a much lower cost. By allowing more access to information to mankind, it cheapened education and evolved the common man. McLuhan then draws a parallel between Gutenberg's printing press and the computer. A tough work to read, but interesting.

It enhances how I feel about Cage's optimism regarding future technology. It is McLuhan's theory in spades. McLuhan believes the new computer will re-invent mankind, and that's exactly what happened.

Cage's philosophy later states that art is an act without limitations or value, and uses that as a model for society run through anarchy.  One problem persists with the idea, it leaves personal responsibility up for grabs and assumes everyone will be tolerant of whatever 'music' plays. As we know, not everyone has the same taste in music, therefore, some will not enjoy this new model of society and will inevitably rebel against it, causing social dissonance. In any case, Cage presents an interesting idea thought out and well articulated for our consideration. 

McLuhan and Cage's arguments make the mistake of assuming that technology breeds change in man, rather than change in man breeding new technology. An important distinction, this leads us to understand that instead of reinventing mankind, these 'new technologies' (as McLuhan puts it) are simply external devices which impact our lives, rather than guide them. Following this line of logic boasts the fact  that they are simply new ways of interpreting and collecting information, and communicating with one another. I believe it is a mistake to believe that an external device can hold any responsibility or accountability, as an extension of mankind's consciousness. It is an unfeeling device, not a means by which to evolve man. We are the same people we were thousands of years ago, but today we learn and communicate differently, that is all.

Later on the article speaks of Yatha butham, or 'just as it is.' To Cage, works of art aren't symbols, they are things or actions which are implicitly nothing. So at this point, it represents nothing to Cage, which would be to say, anarchy, social change. Therefore, Cage's music functions as a representation of the social change he would like to see in the world. If this logic follows, then Cage is trying to have his cake and eat it to.  It would be realistic to say that nothing would be nothing, not something. So if Cage had done nothing, we would not remember him, but his ideology would be more airtight. He wants his music to be 'an action which is implicitly nothing.' Explicitly he communicated just that social change, but without implying anything from his work, he still puts forth symbology of social change, a change to nothing. By taking Cage at face value, he is advocating against himself by what he states. 

The idea a little later of treating the audience as a score of individuals instead of a group struck me as a very radical idea. Performers have always treated the audience as a unit. The English word for audience, the only one used regularly, is in the singular. This idea changes the entire scope of music. 'How does the audience interpret x' will be different for every piece and probably different from every player's perspective. The audiences seems more appropriate, to say that each person is an audience unto himself. One person listening to Beethoven's 5th Symphony, for example, would be an audience, would they not? Why then is every person not treated as such?

Cage continues to contradict himself in this article, his logic becomes very flawed and I lose confidence that even he knows what he is saying. For example:

"The second performance [of HPSCHD], in Albert Hall on May 22, differed in many obvious ways from the Roundhouse performance, especially, according to Cage, "because of the architecture." In the Albert Hall, the audience was seated with Cage and Tudor on the stage and ten loudspeakers at the back of the auditorium. Cage described how he was forced to accept that the audience was seated, but at least wanted the loudspeakers to surround the audience, "so that  people sitting on one side could later converse with people who had been sitting on the other and discover that they had heard something different." Unfortunately, Cage said, "that too was not possible.""

I found this so ironic, a man like Cage, whose beliefs were inexorably tied to his work, allowed his musical ideology to be abandoned for the sake of a performance. One would think he would prefer to hold the performance outside, in the gymnasium, or unbolt and move the chairs to allow the interactive space for HPSCHD. I cannot get over that he abandoned this aspect of the performance.  How can he continue to hold his belief. This realization shakes my confidence that Cage could even have stood for what he said he stood for. It seems that the importance of HPSCHD was the audience interaction, the work experienced as a living piece, but without the audience able to move, Cage was fine holding the performance anyway? Really?

"What is the average person in the US when he is grown up and he has a job and makes his living and pays his bills? He spends his evenings looking at TV. The TV would not let me on a program. Therefore I'm not a court jester, I'm more a teacher." No, Cage was on a TV Program, we watched it in class. If he truly believes what he says, would that not make him a jester by his own admission? How can we take anything he has to say seriously when there are these serious gaps in his logic.

On p. 491 Cage may have been hampered in his medium by creating a European structure that did not yield to relevant American social issues. Cage however, created a structure that was free-form, that anyone could walk to, into, around, and through to experience. How is this exclusive? How does it pertain solely to a European structure? Admittedly, the inherent racism at Illinois U at the time the work was performed may have led to his hampering. But Cage was not opposed to this treatment of the blacks, rather he says "They [blacks] mostly think they would like to be just as powerful as the whites. That's not the proper way." In that statement, does he not imply that blacks are not supposed to have as much power as whites? If not, how are we to say he is not a racist? Clearly he has turned a blind eye to the issue in his backyard, or is unaware of it, which seems very unlikely. Moreover, he contradicts himself enough to provoke one to ask if this situation is even worth questioning.

Overall, the comparison of Gesamtkunstwerk to Cage and HPSCHD was refreshing and relevant. A thought provoking idea, but it led me from a dim realization of Cage's farce to a full belief that his ideology was a facade, and the true nature of Cage is something we have not yet realized, or that he himself did not realize, or allowed to happen by chance, not by choice and true belief, as his music does.