For the record--and those who'll call me a troll--notice I've kind of let this thread deie, and it just keeps coming back...I'm not complaining here, you start something, you better be able to finish it--take that Bush Administration (oh, I am going to get SO MUCH crap for that, IT WAS A JOKE, PEOPLE, first one to take it seriously gets a pie in the face and a kick in the ass) so...

Here we go...still.

@Lord Alex:

First...wow, you read all of that? I don't know whether to commend your determination or ask if you're feeling OK... :p

First off, I have given up the 2001 front, I didn't mean for that to become as big a conversation as it became, I STILL say that, again, excepting the portion of the movie centered around Dave and HAL and that mission, the film is...well, I'll put it this way: you can, through literary or strucutral theory or even just good old-fashioned interpretation come up with DOZENS of interpretations to "Hamlet," "Macbeth," "1984," "Les Miserables," "The Raven," "Waiting For Godot," and so on, but there are, still WRONG interpretations, you CAN be wrong...if you try to pass off "Hamlet"--which I use a ton as an example, I know, but only because I know that play inside out and so feel I can talk about it rationally here, it IS a legitimate masterpiece, and, well, I truly love it--as being about the Rise of the Roman Empire, YOU ARE WRONG.

We can tell that because the parts of the play are defined and it is the MEANING that is left up for debate.

In 2001, I'd argue, it's both.

What's the Star Child? SOME will say it's a new form of life, and some might say that it's man evolving into something new...

But *I* have just as much evidence to back up the claim that it's man de-evolving, that we saw man go from monkey to man and now into a fetal stage ans so, as per Frued's theory that all beings wish to reach an early, fetal form of being for security, the Star Child represents we've gone TOO FAR, and not that we've reached a new plateau.

If that sounds absurd...well, I just gave legitimate reasons for MY interpretation, and you have yours, but my point is, as we're never even HINTED at what the Star Child is...well, we can read into its being there really...anything.

Not so in something like "Hamlet." But let's junk the Dane, I have an even better example to illustrate my issue with 2001.

Let's take something that'd seem much in the same vein, in that artsy, post-WWII era vein.

Let's take "Godot" from "Waiting From Godot."

We never se Godot. EVER. He NEVER comes. EVER. And yet he's right in the title. He's of such immense importance Didi and Gogo will stand in that one, desolate, miserable spot forever, waiting for him.

But what is his significance...what does it MEAN?

Given the fact this play makes MANY allusions to the Bible, the reverant manner in which the two speak of Godot, and that "Godot" is notoriously close to "God," and that God/Jesus/many religious figures have told their disciples to "wait" for their return, in one manner or another, be it God or Jesus post-ressurection or what have you, we can make an informed, educated interpretation and say Godot is perfhaps not a perfect equivalent of god--especially as Beckett himself said that wasn't the case--but that he certainly symbolizes a God-like figure, the absence of some sort od deliverance, of people being forgitten, feeling abandoned...in short, the nihilistic view of life and religion as seen often in art of that period.

NOW...again--what's the Star Child? I gave all these reasons for why Godot can be seen with good reason one way...I gave them from the text, from the character's actions in the text, from the artistic history which surrounds the play, from the author himself...what's the Star Child?

For that matter, what are the monoliths? They appear and something new happens in man's life, I suppose that's at least more than we get with the Star Child, but what ARE they? Act of God? PUNISHMENT of God (since we see that they show up and hey, man learns TO KILL, which is knowledge, but if we take knowledge in a NEGATIVE sense a la the Biblical Apple, and see we wind up killed by computers and as fetal star babies as a result...maybe it's BAD?) Random occurence? Why are they black? Why are they rectangular? Why only at certain moments? I didn't see a monolith appear when the apple fell on Newton--yes, I know the story's apocryphal, but THAT, at least, would seem to be more of a hint...the Apple plus the learning to kill, then it's definitely a moment of inspiration, and you could even argue that'd make for a richer interpretive experience, as now, instead of the mere question of "What ARE the monoliths?" we can ask if the monoliths and their nature are GOOD or BAD, Newton's Apple set against learning to kill and the Biblical Apple...

But nope...

Kubrick is too busy showing us three minute shots of a spaceship flying from one part of the screen to another, or the lady on the ship walking upside down on the ship serving juice, or the man asleep and that pen floating in mid-air...floating...FLOATING...

THE SUSPENSE! WILL that pen ever find it's way into his hands again?!

A pen floating in space REALLY ranks up there with "To be or not to be" or "Sing in me, Muse, The tales of that man skilled in all ways contending," or "Do you ever think of yourself dead, lying in a box?" or, to satisfy those who would cry that this moment and the film is visually-driven (I'd agree there) and significant (I'll agree it was significant and even groundbreaking in how films were SHOT, and in a GOOD way, but, again, that pen flaoting in space or the juice lady on the ceiling...really?)...

How about when Luke Skywalker looks out into the sunset, music blaring that timeless theme...we know Luke--he's a character that was actually allowed to grow and develop via dialogue and action already, you see--and what's more we've ALL ahd that moment where we're young and looking out into the horizon, our own horizon...great visual moment...

Or how about that infamous image of Hamlet with Yorick's skull? (OK, last Hamlet reference, I promise...)

Or...hell, just about ALL of "Apocalypse Now" (I HATE "Heart of Darkness," I feel Conrad as a writer is talented but too often goes WAY overboard and becomes almost impressionist with his style, like he's trying to paint a picture with his words, which is fine but in the context of a plot, especially a short story/novella as is the case here, I'd argue that there's painting a scene and painting a scene to the point you're not developing your plot overly well and slowing the pace of your work horribly, but that's just my opinion, I won't attack Conrad here as he IS a fine author...anyway, what was I going to say, oh, right, I almost NEVER recommend the movie over the book/play, but this is perhaps the one instance where I WOULD.)

All of those images are pretty darn meaningful, drive the story nicely AND are open to intepretation...

And set agaisnt that on 2001's side--a pen floating in space, two minutes of a ship docking, three minutes of it flying across the screen, and, of course, the all-too-random Star Child.

The ONE image that I think 2001 has gotten DUE credit for is the part where the monkey throws the bone and iit flies upward and we get, at the end, the spaceship, showing jsut how far man's progressed.

The meaning THERE can be debated, but the strucutre, style, and the rest lends itself very well to artistic interpretation based on...well more than just specualtion.

Actually, I'll go a step further--I'll say that one shot IS 2001: A Space Odyssey, that's the whole film RIGHT THERE, the all-too-often trumpeted theme of "man's progression" is shown right there...

And the rest, barring HAL and his segment, is, to quote a REAL character...

"A tale told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Now, onto the issue of art...

Draug, your statement that we could still have and see black without white, that without light we'd still have darkness, and so black, falls flat, I believe, as without the light we cannot have darkness, we'd just have whatever it is...definition comes from contrast.

It doesn't have to be a black-and-white contrast and definition (as you are so fond of accusing me of using) but there must be SOME definition, as color is a quality, and qualities are determined via evaluation, not whether it's "good" or "bad," but rather simply a matter of degree--the green leaf absorbs a certain amount, a certain DEGREE of light, light of a certain quality, is reflected.

Art requires that which is not art, otherwise there is no art, and Bentham would have been quite correct when he said poetry was as worthwhile and meaningful as pushpin...



And now I'll adress Lord Alex directly.

Firstly, I take issue with your definition of art, sir, because, quite frankly, I think you must ahve taken the definition that would define art in terms of paintings, sculptures, etc., and not in the broader sense of the term.

"art, also called visual art: a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination"

A VISUAL boject or expression, eh?

Someone ought to tell Mozart and Beethoven that they're looking awfully silly... ;)

As two of your three exampes of art rely on the "visual object" interpretation of art, and I've just raised the obvious adn damning counterexample of MUSIC, I'll leave those alone.

And now...w'ere back, once more, to 4:33.

I'd firstly question that "skill" is required...to record nothing? *I* could do THAT with my laptop's microphone and a quiet room...skill?

Unless you're going to tell me Cage's "record" and "stop" buttons are made of steel and 50-lbs heavy, I fail to see where "skill" enters into recording nothing or, to be more appropriate so as to avoid scorn, recording silence.

And...

Well, after that you have "not what you like," and "too hard to understand for you," so NOW your argument is predicated upon the premise that I can't understand...

Yes...well, if you've REALLY already read the last four pages, you'll know how I feel about THAT kind of argument, so...

Well, wehen your argument boils down to "YOU don't get it, it;s TOO HARD for YOU," then you've officially reached the point where I stop taking you seriously, as clearly you've ceased taking me seriously, and really, if you won't give me the courtesy due here, why should I do the same and adress your argument (especially when YOU are the one with an erroneous definition of "art" that limits it to "visual objects" and so shuts out music entirely...this after telling me *I* don't understand or can't comprehend art.)

WHEW!

(Oh--and how did everyone enjoy Thanksgiving?) ;)

There is space between atoms, I believe, abgemacht, and so I would then hold that your analogy is flawed...granted I'm no physicist, so check me on that, but there ARE spaces between atoms, or between at least potons and orbiting clouds of electrons, I believe, so, again, there does seem some contrast.

@Ernst_Brenner:

I'd ask that you clarify that a bit more, sir, but let me tentatively say that I think I might back your idea...that there is the objective that we perceive and then the subjective...not exactly what I'd postulate, but I still like that idea, at its core, if I'm reading it correctly?

@obi: I see you've taken a common tactic in Internet discussions...you've responded to the arguments you think you can rebut, and ignored the ones you can't. I posted a response about 4:33 that you haven't replied to--one that makes your point about "silence" completely irrelevant.

Back to my tete a tete with obiwan here.
First of all, I think we should just agree to disagree about 2001, since that particular argument seems to be getting nowhere fast.

"A VISUAL boject or expression, eh?

Someone ought to tell Mozart and Beethoven that they're looking awfully silly... ;)"

Of course their music is art! It is obvious to anyone not looking for non sequitur flaws in an argument that this definition was mainly directed at visual art, but it can easily be applied to music or movies.
So it's not a "damning counterpoint. Rather it is a nitpicky way to avoid the examples I put up by pointing a finger at me and saying that I only think visual art is art.
Next...

"I'd firstly question that "skill" is required...to record nothing? *I* could do THAT with my laptop's microphone and a quiet room...skill?"

You know when you're listening to the news, and you hear about some young entrepreneur that started up a business that is now wildly successful, and you think, well I could have done that!
That is the exact same sort of pompousness you have here.

I could have recorded 4:33 of silence if I had really wanted to, but I chose not to!
That same "argument" could be and is made against almost every company!
I could have started up a business where food is sold out a window, but I chose not to (to cite McDonalds)!
So when a person comes up with a brilliantly "simple" idea, there are inevitably people who say that they could have done that, you know, if they had wanted to.

So that is the sort of incomprehension that I was trying to get at in my earlier post.

@obi

1) You realize you said, "First off, I have given up the 2001 front, I didn't mean for that to become as big a conversation as it became..." and the proceeded to write a 2000 word post on 2001...

2) I'll admit that that wasn't the best of examples, but you completely missed my second point about varying degrees of art. Do you have nothing to say to that?

@pastoralan:

I'm responding to seemingly everyone here (as I seem to be alone or in the minority with my opinion, especially regarding 2001) so if I missed your argument I apologize...what was it? (If someone else also posted a similar argument I might have just adressed his and yours under one example as well...again, unless your name is Miro Klose I'm not in the business of actively ignoring your points, so sorry again.)

@Lord Alex:

I would disagree that your definition is workable, since really your argument is that it can easily be changed in the wording to include music. A "nitpicky" counter example?

No, I'd say that my counter example IS a pretty big one, if your going to make the case--as you initially did, whether you meant to or not--that art pertains to visual objects...music IS a valid and big counterexample to that idea...

"You know when you're listening to the news, and you hear about some young entrepreneur that started up a business that is now wildly successful, and you think, well I could have done that!
That is the exact same sort of pompousness you have here."

No.

See, if I here that, I might think "Oh, I could've done THAT," sure...but the point is I WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY *DONE* SOMETHING!

Inaction is NOT an action by the same logic that holds "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby, and "not smoking" is not an addiction.

And I'm not even going to humor that point of Cage's 4:33 as being "brialliantly simple." There's no brilliance in recording silence, none whatsoever, art is about expression and expression requires action. Even expression through passive actions, in terms of a Ghandi-esque hunger strike or something, is something, and actually...no, let's adress that example right now, as I feel an "AHA!" coming on from the pro-4:33 crowd.

"AHA!" they say, "YOU ADMIT IT! In a hunger strike you are NOT eating, and in doing so you express yourself, and here we have expression through inaction, through music not playing!"

Let's adress this bit by bit--is a hunger strike expressive of an ideal?
Certainly.
Is a hunger strike ART?
Certainly NOT.

Unless you are prepared to make the audacious claim that the emptiness of my belly and, by contrast, when I act, the emptying of my bowels constitutes art, we must accept that there are actions and inactions which are NOT artistic actions. To view otheriwse is to literally view everything as art in the worse possibly way--thay breath you're taking? Art. Going to the bathroom? Art. Scratching your thigh? Art. Watching the baseball game on TV while eating a bag of Doritos? Art.

That is an ABSURD position, and simply cannot be defended--as a result, we see that there ART actions pertaining to art and actions that do not.

Still, you say, surely still we have said inaction can be expressive, and expression is still vital to art...even if we accept your claim not all actions are artistic actions, how can you claim that an action or inaction which is expressive cannot be art?

Two responses:

-As I think I've already said--would we consider the inaction of not eating for a hunger strike expressive and not art? Certainly. So if we want to be generous--and I honestly think I'm being generous saying THIS MUCH about it--and say that 4:33 is expressive, we can certainly conceive of something being expressive and yet not art...unless we are willing to call a hunger strike's expression art, then we should seem forced to accept this conclusion, and so even if we grant expression, then calling 4:33 art is not a necessary consequence.

-As evidenced, expression is not the only pre-requisite for something to be considered art. "Art" is generally a word that is associated with verbes--created, painted, sung, written, made, did, etc.--and a verb, by definition, is an ACTION. A verb is either a state of being or an outright action, the state of being verb being evidenced by "This IS art" and the action verb evidenced by "He CREATED art." INACTION, then, seems incompatible with art.

"No no," it may be responded, "there IS action...he CHOSE not to act, and that in itself is an action, he CHOSE not to have music, and that's an action as well."

Again--chosing not to act is inaction, the same way that not eating is the absence of the action of eating rather than the action of not acting.

"He ate the cheeseburger." "Ate" here is the verb, hence there was an action
"He did not eat a cheeseburger." "Did not," grammatically, nullifies "eat" within the context of the sentence, and so it nullifies the verb, and so nullifies the action--and so there is no action.

Not a trick, not closed-mindedness, not personal, not my "not getting it."

It's just simple logic, it's just grammar.

The same may be said about the blank canvas...to say "he intended not to paint the canvas" is to nullify the action of painting, and so we are left only with intention alone. "To intend" is an action, a verb, but it is also a POTENTIAL verb, that is, it states that something COULD happen, not that it DID.

Roberto Clemente INTENDED to land safely in his plane on New Year's Eve 1972, but did not (and that, non-baseball fans, is one of the saddest moments in the history of the game...the Lation Jackie Robinson, dying trying to fly relief supplies to Nicaragua after a terrible earthquake...RIP, a great man.)

Mozart likely INTENDED to finish his Requiem, but the fact that he intended to do so does not make it so, and clearly it is NOT finished (we can still call it art as it's still technically an action that WAS carried out, just not all the way...the merits can be debated, of course, but that's another matter altogether.)

I could have INTENDED for this conversation to go far better for my part--but that doesn't make it so.

Intention does NOT equal action, only potential action.



@abgemacht:

1. LOL, I know, I noticed that after I posted... XD

2. The idea that there are varying degrees of art? Of course, I'll agree that there are, hence our questio to evaluate art, to say Shakespeare is better than Marlowe or vice versa (good luck with the "vice versa" stance, though, all respect due to Marlowe.) ;)

That a blank canvas or nothing recorded counts as a degree?

No, I cannot agree to that, or would have to say it'd count as a degree to the degree of "0," that is, as the threshold that is NOT art, and "above" that is art...but that itself seems absurd and I would not readily take it as my stance.

1. I would still have to argue that 4:33 is a piece of art through its "inaction" as you put it.No one else before Cage was just walking around and suddenly thought that they should make a piece of music with no notes, or if they did, they didn't follow through. Now after the piece was made, I'm sure a bunch of imitators tried to do the same thing, but it had already been done at that point!

2. Cage created/wrote that piece of music. Now you will say, But he DIDN'T CREATE ANYTHING, it's INACTION!
But I would put forth that just because there are no notes doesn't mean he has not composed a piece. It is composed fully of rests and ambient audience sounds. It is still a piece of music.

Of course 4'33" is a piece of music. It can be and has been performed. You can buy a recording. You can buy more than one recording and compare the performances, decide which you prefer, discuss the director's and/or performers' interpretive choices etc. And of course Cage DID something when he wrote it. Of course a blank canvass can be considered as a work of art, interpreted, reacted to. If an artist takes a blank canvass and says this is a work of art, then he has DONE something, none of that inaction non-sense. To suggest that 2001 isn't a movie is just dumb. And any quantity of insistence on the part of the doubters does not change the fact;)

I'm not sure what I would make of a prolific painter / sculptor who insists in the face of the critics' unanimous approval that the objects he produces are not art. I suspect though that those objects too are art.

Thanks for the support mcbry!

Alright, let me take these posts one at a time...better still, let me adress one KEY portion:

"But I would put forth that just because there are no notes doesn't mean he has not composed a piece. It is composed fully of rests and ambient audience sounds. It is still a piece of music."

Composed fully of rests?

First of all, a rest, by definition, is a break from music or sound, implying that there is supposed to be sound to break FROM, and if there is none I would then argue that you may not write a rest for the same reason you cannot, should not, will not write a period and no words in a sentence. A period denotes both the end of a though and a break between that sentence and the next, and so to have simply "..." is absurd--at which point I am NOW sure someone is keen to point out the case of the elipses, to say "YES! People us "..." to denote a pause!"

Too true.

That is only used, however, WITHIN a sentence, ie, "To be...or not to be...that is the question."

"..." is NOT a sentence, and that is NOT a matter up for debate; much as that might be used now in this texting-friendly world of ours, "..." is NOT a sentence.

A sentence requires:
-WORDS
-A SUBJECT
-A VERB

"I am." VERY short sentence, but it has all of the above--a subject in "I," "am" is a state-of-being verb, and it certainly has words.

I find it VERY interesting that all you "45:33 IS music!" proponents have NOT, EVER adressed my analogy for why I have said it is not, centrally, namely...

THERE IS NO SENTENCE WITHOUT WORDS.

A score ios a MUSICAL sentence.

THEREFORE,

A MUSICAL SCORE MUST HAVE MUSICAL WORDS, IE, NOTES.

We can't take RESTS to be musical words, as by your own admission they are a BREAK in the sound, just as a period is a break and a pause between sentences.'

Rests are akin to periods, and we just stated that "..." is NOT A SENTENCE.

THEREFORE, NEITHER IS "rest-rest-rest-rest, etc." on a musical score.

And so, from all of that, the conclusion, logically derived from all of the above,

A score CANNOT be composed entirely of rests, as it is akin to a sentence being composed of all periods and not words, the latter of which is absurd, and so, by connection, we see that the former is as well, and Cage's "4:33" is NOT, then, a work of music.

QED! :p (No, I'm serious with that "QED," though, that DOES follow as a logical necessity given my propositions above, so I put it to you--either you must prove to me that a sentence need not contain words or else prove that music is different and does not require "words," ie, "notes." AMBEINT sound, as per THEIR definition, is INCIDENTAL sounds, and so are NOT intended and NOT part of the score and so NOT words, it'd be the same if I spilt some ink onto my copy of Faulker's "Go Down, Moses" at my side and it somehow formed a "WE" on the page; it's incidental, and we would NEVER call that part of Faulkner's work.)

So, once and for all--prove to me that a sentence does not need words and/or may be composed entirely of periods OR prove to me that a musical sentence does not need to abide by such a standard, or else I submit, once and for all, your case is flawed and "4:33" and the blank canvas CANNOT be considered music or a painting, painting following the same logic of the sentence, ie, the same way you cannot have a sentence without words you cannot have a painting without even one drop of paint or something to affect the canvas as the blank canvas is a break from the color; telling me the artist INTENDED to leave it blank or leave the musical score blank doesn't do any good as that doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, grammatically impassable as a work of literature without words, as a score without musical words or sound caused and planned by the artist, and as a painting without any paint or any intended changing of the canvas.

Simple enough, my proposition, which you have skirted around and yet have not defeated or even adressed, for the most part:

"A sentence cannot be without words."

If that is a false assertion, by all means show it to be so, and if you cannot, I must submit that there can be no further case as per the reasons of extension I have exemplified above.

@mcbry:

"Any quantity of the insistence on the part of the doubters."

OOOOOOKKKK.....lol, no, I'm just messing with you, but that just sounds odd to me, lol...

I'm done debating 2001 anyway...I didn't say it wasn't a film, technically, just that it was void and without meaning and, as such, not a film in the sense that a play with little definitive action or lines is much of a play.

I'd liken 2001 as a film--again with the exception of the portion with HAL--to a play consisting of a man sitting in a chair for two hours, occaisionally getting up to do a brief dance without explanation or reasoning why before, during, or after...

It counts, yes--but I fin it a REAL STRETCH to call that a masterpiece, let alone a work of genius...

Musical piece ≠ sentence.

And, frankly, did you read mcbry's post at all?
The piece has been performed. There are multiple copies of it. You can buy a recording. Some of the 4:33s are better than others.

Sure, it's unorthodox, but being unorthodox does not make it not a piece of music.

And saying that 2001 is the same as a play where "a man is sitting in a chair for two hours, occaisionally getting up to do a brief dance without explanation or reasoning" is both a false analogy, and incredibly insulting.

The essential of my argument is that art is neither objective nor subjective but rather an equation or formula which requires both.

Limited minds rarely see genius where it truly exists. Just kidding obiwan. :-)

As far as 4:33, I view it as art, but not music. I also view the blank canvas as art, but not a painting. The medium does not define the kind of art something is. Both make statements and have intent behind them and are therefore art. But they are conceptual art, not traditional painting or music. They just happen to use audio and visual mediums we expect to be used for something else as their medium to express the concept.

@Ernst_Brenner:

So art is not dominated by the objective nor the subjective but requires both to come to an understanding?

Yes--if that is indeed your position, then I heartily agree.

@Draugnar:

Before I go any further with your assertion that 4:33/the blank canvas are art but not music/a painting, I must ask, then, how that can be possible, as by my already enumerated line of reasoning (stating that first there is art and then the mediums of art, music, literature, paintings, etc., are subsets of art) that is not possible.

You state that "The medium does not define the kind of art something is. Both make statements and have intent behind them and are therefore art."

But, again, as I'v said before...

I can say "MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR!" and really have an intent behind that, but I doubt much if anyone is going to term that four-word shout a work of art...and technically I can say I used the audio medium, ie, my voice...if that isn't art, how can I count the blank canvas or 4:33 as one, simply by your own definition?

@Lord Alex:

I DID read his post...you, apparently, have not read all of mine.

So, a musical piece is NOT like a sentence, in that it has a structure of signifiers--ie, words, notes, etc.--and breaks in that signalling and expressing--periods, commas, musical rests, etc.?

OK, then--WHY?????

I can just say "NO" to anything as well, but *I* gave a pretty detailed account of my defense of that analogy, that a musical score is like a written sentence in the sense I have already mentioned, and your response, AGAIN, does NOTHING, does not even ATTEMPT to present a counter argument or even a counterexample to my claim.

Here is that claim again, folks:

"A sentence must contain words to be a sentence."

I cpouldd get more technical and include that amongst those words there must be a subject and a verb, but let's leave it at the basics, as you've yet to even TOUCH on that basic point.

You have presented absolutely no argument, whatsoever, to CONTRADICT my asserition that a musical score is like a sentence in the sense I have mentioned and that a sentence must have words, ergo a muscial score must have "musical words," ie, nots, and not merely rests, as that would be the same as a sentence which contains all periods, which would NOT be a sentence, and so a musical score would not be a musical score with only "musical periods," ie, rests, and no "musical words," ie, notes.

I will not respond further until you actually respond to MY point, Lord Alex, as I've raised that point several times now, adn you have never answered it.

Merely saying "Musical piece ≠ sentence" is NOT an argument, it's an assertion, and as you give no evidence to support that assertion, I have no grounds to accept it.

There's another part of your post I DESPERATELY want to adress, but I'll wait and see if you give me an argument to support your claim that a musical piece is not like a sentence in the sense I mean, for if you can't I see no reason to go further, as if you cannot refute that point and the line of reasoning that stems from it, I see no reason to continue this debate--as I'd count it as being already resolved by that statement and my assertion that 4:33 is not art upheld.

If anyone ELSE has a counter to my analogy and line of reasoning from it, please feel free.



As for 2001...I keep saying I won't talk about it, and now obiwanobiwan is going to let Captain Picard do the talking for him on how I feel about that subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr3rlT7NfVU

;)

OK Obi, I'll clarify it further. Statement, intent, and originality. Shouting any common statement to the world is not original. Deciding to record 4:33 is as is putting up the blank canvas. Now had you shouted an original thought, be it comic or serious, it would be a form of art. Likewise a reading of the Manhattan phone book can be art if there was a meaning or intent put into how it was read (i.e. it was done dramatically) but not if it was just read aloud to be read as there would be nothing original to it.

The next person who records silence or puts up a blank canvas isn't creating art, he (or she) is just a copycat.

@obi (I'm responding admittedly haphazardly) glad you appreciated my "any quantity of insistence" sentence. It was intentionally odd sounding. Alex is right, though, that you missed the content of my post. The examples of art in question were created, if only by the assertion on the part of the artist that "this is art". That performative statement is all that is required to create a product complete with form, content and intentionality, just like when you say "I promise..." the promise is created in the utterance. Of course in terms of content, 4'33" and the blank canvass are radical, extremes delineating a limit, but the limit is an integral part of the range.

Just out of curiosity, is a single note maintained over a span of 4 minutes music? BTW, you saying "MAKE LOVE NOT WAR" could be a recognized work of art if you stated that such was the case and if you treated it as a work of art by for example selling tickets or otherwise inviting an audience. I wouldn't dispute the status of what you mutter to yourself when you are alone in the shower as art either, but there is very little remaining for any audience to consider, comment on or interpret. That is one of the limitations of performance art, that it exists only as it's being performed, and the audience's memory is rather required for the work's survival. Another example occurs to me: a dear friend of mine makes book art. One of his books was a book that could not be opened, at least by conventional means, because it was bound on two sides. In it were a series of poems. Rather a Schrodinger's cat of a poem series which demonstrates nothing but is interesting nonetheless.

I agree with Lord Alex that a piece of music is not a sentence. A cat is not a chair. And I don't think either statement requires any further argumentation. That's the problem with metaphors. You might assert some similarity, but in the end, the two things being compared are not the same, and nothing is demonstrated in the comparison. You may state that a sentence is like a painting, but that has demonstrated nothing, and the painting remains exempt from whatever constraints you seek to impose on the concept of the sentence.
Regarding whether 2001 is like a play with a person sitting on a chair and sporadically jumping out of his seat and dancing before returning to the chair, I would suggest that 2001 is full of significant images that are meaningful for their beauty, it is richness of sounds (and silence), textures, and contrasts and it is clearly telling a story albeit in very large brush-strokes. That doesn't mean that the man sitting in the chair and occasionally dancing isn't a play, and I rather think I would enjoy seeing that play, though I might prefer to see the abridged version. It reminds me of some of the Warhol films of people sitting in chairs or sleeping. These limit examples do not conform to Aristotle's unities (which are BTW prescriptive rather than descriptive) but are no less works of art.

Oh, I also wanted to say to Draug that I think a "copy" can be art too, as long as it is presented as a new work of art (that is, recognizing the overt similarity to the original, but insisting nonetheless on the independent identity of the new work). It is certainly not a forgery (which pretends to BE the work it is copying.) Nor is it a copy (which makes no claim to being a work of art).

@McBry - first +1 for your excellent response explaining intent and the exploration that the artist declares it to be art by how he presents it and insists it is. I like that.

I agree that a sort of copy with a variation is (or can be) art. I was saying the artist would be viewed as a copycat if he just put up a blank white canvas and called it "snowstorm" as it is indistinguishable fro the first blank white canvas. However, if an artist found a perfectly black canvas (canvas comes in many colors) and called it "depression" or "inside the womb" that would be a perfectly valid variation and a form of art, although some might still call into question the originality of the concept. Some works of art are one time deals that just can't be altered into another work of art because they are primarily conceptual in origin.

And another thing, Obi, anyone that bashes Joseph Conrad (even qualified bashing) and suggests that Star Wars is in any way the equal or better of 2001 (or by extension that anything George Lucas could ever be associated with could be the equal or better of anything Stanley Kubrick was associated with) and in the same post no less, shall officially and effective immediately have his/her license to express, dispute, or otherwise pontificate any opinion regarding art and the artistic hereby REVOKED. You, sir, are a philistine. That is all.

:)

Now, I do wish I were an artist with a gallery to display things in, because I would do a series of blank canvasses in different frames where the frames were the art and the mood and expression would be relayed by the time of frame: it's materials, composition, colors, etc.

*time of frame = type of frame

Man am I doing typos today.

well thanks Draug, and thanks for discreetly correcting my imbecilic spelling of canvas (damn spell checker let me down again.)

I tend to agree with you in terms of the degraded value of art that is merely a copy albeit with a different name. There are only so many times that sort of thing can be done. I'm reminded (vaguely, unfortunately) of an artist that made a copy of Warhol's Brillo Box and called it something like "Not Warhol" or "Not a Brillo Box". Fine. I won't say it's not art, nor would I deny the status of a copy of that copy as art, but I might be tempted to smack the artist who goes for the third iteration.

Warhol... Uggggh. Let's show the same image from pop culture over and over with different forground and background colors. Marilyn Monroe was fine. But really, Campbell's soup cans and Brillo boxes? Talk about beating a dead horse. :-)

But I won't deny it's art, just not art of my liking.

Campbell's Soup Cans was awesome. We have a recreation of it in one of my cupboards.

LOL! I have a variation of it in my overhead at work done with Campbell's Chunky soups of different flavors. But there are a few gaps where I've had lunch in since the last time I stocked it.

Thanks for backing me up guys, it saved me a bunch of typing.

Additionally, I like the Campbell's soup painting just because I thought it was funny.