Re: Re: Perloff on Cage/Cunningham

On 01/08/2011 01:41 AM, Semih Firincioglu wrote:
> Hi Daniel, I read the article. It has been a very long time now but I think
> you are right, I don't remember seeing synthesizers with ugly wiring, etc.
> There used to be a table in the middle, by the little forest, and kitchen on
> the side, where a big pot of soup simmered at all times (and tasted
> absolutely awful from my point of view). All these can be answered by Andrew
> Culver of course, if he is on this list.
>
> Perloff's article seems to be shifty, I couldn't figure out her point. She
> refers to Carolyn Brown's book a lot. Frankly, I have a hard time
> understanding why Brown was bitter about Cunningham's matter-of-factness and
> why Perloff is making a big deal out of it. It was very well known that his
> mind was obsessively occupied by bodies moving in space and everything else
> was a distraction to him. I have heard from so many people that dancers were
> just bodies for him and he could bring them in or out just like that. Good
> or bad, but I am a bit surprised that Brown was surprised by this ‹ although
> I don't know anything about the dynamics in the old days.
>
> Similarly, Perloff seems to be surprised about Cage's meticulousness in the
> execution of his chance-determined work. I also read in a review of Brown's
> book that she says she was annoyed when Cage scolded her about not doing
> something as instructed, which was randomly decided after all. Didn't Brown
> know that this was Cage 101?
>
> Perloff writes that a couple with a baby were asked to leave and a woman in
> high heels was asked to take them off during the 1992 Standford performance.
> I just can't imagine John stopping his performance to tell someone to leave
> or to take her shoes off, but I can imagine people in the audience telling
> all sorts of things to each other. Indeed, Cage's performances, especially
> his readings turned the audiences into spectacles: I remember watching
> furious people ready to strangle those who were talking or giggling or
> leaving when he did Muoyce at the Whitney in 1984.
>
> Semih
>
>
> On 11/23/10 6:31 AM, "Daniel Wolf"<[email protected]>  wrote:
>
>> Marjorie Perloff has an article online, "Constructed Anarchy", here:
>> http://www.lanaturnerjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
>> 52:perloffconstructedanarchy&catid=37:issue34&Itemid=54
>> While the topic is close to my own interests, I'd like to hold off on
>> comment until I've digested it better.  In the meantime, however, there is
>> one sentence that strikes me as odd. Perloff writes about the
>> Cage/Cunningham apartment that:
>>
>> "This ³living area² was complemented by two others:  one, a kind of
>> technology center, was full of synthesizers, tape recorders, and computer
>> equipment, with much ugly wiring:  here Cage worked out his now
>> electronically chance-generated compositions."
>>
>>
>> Is this description accurate?  The computers were there for sure, but
>> synthesizers and tape recorders?  Could anyone on this list verify this?
>>
>> Daniel Wolf
>
>





Hi there, I'm really late on this one but I stumbled upon Perloff's 
article only a week ago. I had overlooked the Silence mail containing 
that link, I apologize for that.

What's interesting about that piece is its theme, the "constructed 
anarchy" issue. I might sound a bit naive on this but one of the things 
that keeps me hooked on Cage's works and writings is the apparent 
paradox of the rules he followed to practice anarchy. I remember Jackson 
Mac Low being very sure on this point: "Cage was very rigid" he said. 
And I think, if I recall this quotation exactly, he was referring to his 
devotion to his anarchic principles.

This oxymoron, that is a flexible anarchy obtained by a strict 
application of rules, fascinates me; however the meaning of these words 
(rigid, strict, rules) blur and become fuzzy when Cage is in play.

Given that Cage aimed at purposelessness, he was then still aiming at 
"something" (which is actually a "nothing") whereas the ideal absence of 
purpose might be related to the so called "nothing-in-between" he later 
spoke of. Please forgive my approximate and perhaps disordered vision of 
these much studied and analyzed topics which stems from Daniel Charles' 
gloss on the "living on water" mesostic written for Meister Eckhart in 
1991 (that I'm still trying to fully "figure out":-)


Thanks in advance

-- 

Stefano

"When we separate music from
  life what we get is art
  (a compendium of masterpieces)" - John Cage