Really? How so?

And @Uly: I'm still waiting for some replies on my comment, mostly regarding your background.

I have no formal education in the field, no serious interest in it and no deep knowledge of it either and I'm very well aware of it so you can't wonder that my interpretation of the various theories is unorthodox and maybe even plain contradictory to the scholarly approach. Nevertheless, the amount of actual experts that participate in their respective threads on this forum is negligible (debates over economics or politics being prime examples) so I weighed in this one, something I wouldn't dare to try if confronted with a debate between art theorists. I would just sit and learn from their words then, just like I did with your post.

However, if we delve into the expressionist approach again for instance, I wouldn't disregard Cage's intent to express his inner thoughts when he composed 4'33". If I quote the same part again "Until I die there will be sounds. And they will continue following my death. One need not fear about the future of music." Everytime 4'33" is performed, the audience can hear for themselves that indeed the future of music is ensured by the omnipresence of sounds, basically being confronted with the thoughts Cage had in the anechoic chamber. Yes, it is not the prime point of the composition but I say it is there.

One of the reasons why I listed several theories shallowly instead of one deeply is that I preffer Babylonian thinking, damning strict adherence to certain methodology and embracing whatever interesting knowledge can be obtained from synthesis between them. To give an example from economics, I believe both sides of the Methodenstreit were wrong and could progress better if learning from other's strengths. Yeah, many theoretically inclined academics hate such lack of commitment to one method but that's how I roll.

I figure that one can't deal with the question "what is good and what bad art" without touching the question "what is art". I believe in inductive approach to the latter question, we first start from the canon art and then try to form an answer, not invent the definition of art and sort things according to it. If you excuse little argumentum ad verecundiam, 4'33" was recognized as musical composition by the people more knowledgeable than me in these matters.

Also, I didn't hint at Draugnar's stance to the problem of 4'33" but to his overall approach in that last post. It really is pointless to use smug comments that are objectively untrue in a serious debate. I don't object to usage of smug comments, they are fun and whatnot, but they should be in line with one's behaviour. Since he took the issue seriously before, this change in approach signalized that the whole exchange of ideas would be pointless from then on.

Well, Uly, you have a keen mind and sound intuitions.
Concerning an "inductive approach to the latter question, we first start from the canon art and then try to form an answer, not invent the definition of art and sort things according to it."
- There's actually a concept that covers that approach and I'm one who believes it is an important epistemological criterion for possible definitions of art. It's called the "pragmatic constraint" and pretty much works the way you've described. The danger, however, is to take pieces such as 4.33 as "accepted" in the canon and force a definition to take it into account. The fact is, much of the last century's artistic production was debated when the pieces were introduced in the artworld and are still debated now. There's therefore "some" danger in forcing a theory to account for those pieces AND the more traditional works.
Mind you, that danger existed in the 18th century as well, were debates on the topic of defining arts around one founding principle were already happening.

Also, what you call an expression of Cage's thoughts or ideas might be better viewed as the articulation of his artistic proposition such as it was made possible by a certain normative context. All artworks (or almost all of them) try to "say something", "express" what the artist had in mind. Our interpretation of works deal with the way an artist mobilized possibilities in the artworld to articulate his proposition, his idea. The criterion for properly understanding the work, however, is not given by what the artist had in mind (which is impossible to observe) but with the conventions that the artist had available to him. That is, we make our hypotheses of what the work carries as an artistic proposition on the background of shared understandings, understandings that the artist could count on his public sharing with him such that he could expect that what he wanted to accomplish would be understood.
Expressionism, however, is more concerned with feelings and emotions than ideas. It holds that the proper experience of an artwork is to experience the emotions or feelings that the artist had when he created the piece. It poses many problems, one being that not all art expresses feelings.

That's not to say you're wrong. It's really just pointing out to subtle conceptual differences in the field.

Well, if I were to built the house of music using the pragmatic constraint, I wouldn't start from 4'33" and I can see the danger of falling for some sort of bias when trying to fit all sorts of works under one roof. But if it was easy, we wouldn't need any theory after all :)

Thanks for the compliments and showing me where I went wrong, I appreciate that.

Also, genres are not so last century. Although I sometimes view them as borders in post-colonial Africa, that is artificial, divisive and encouraging tribalist behaviour, they serve their purpose of indicating the attributes of music in question fairly well.

I take his comment to mean that "genre studies" is sooooo 20th century, in which case he's somewhat right (though I think there is still much interest in the field for "genre studies"). That is, there has been a growing interest from the 60s or 70s onward for genre studies in art. And maybe K. Walton's "Categories of Art" (a fairly influential paper he wrote in 70) fits in with that trend.

By the way Uly, I don't think you went "wrong" anywhere. Your intuitions are very good, and if your use of the technical concepts does not fit with how they're used in the field, I'd have to be a total ass to think that you are therefore wrong in your ideas for all that.
What's your field? Or, what are you studying?

I believe that one of the strengths of technical concepts is that they are well-defined and allow for common mode of debate between those well-versed in their meanings. That's why I said you showed me where I was wrong since I can now apply them in the same way the experts in your field do, therefore facilitating any further discussion.

I'm studying economics.

Punk music is the best because it's free

it's free because noone would pay for it.

@hellalt

also because there are a bunch of talented kids out there who are putting up there stuff for free to get their names out there and to try to start a local scene in their area

Do you guys listen to organum? Love that shit.