I, of course, would argue for the perspective that music, like beauty can and should be found where ever it can.

I like to think about how a painted piece of a mountain or ocean, for example, is no more prettier than the actual mountain or ocean but that by experiencing those pieces of art I might come to enjoy the Actual much more because I start to look at either the mountain or ocean as artwork itself. Or maybe even start to consider everything as an integrated whole which is art.

Similarly, I think was this composer is doing is expressing in an indirect way that music is all around us and shouldn’t be missed. Which I think is very cool (and maybe expresses the essence of this blog, which supports listening to sounds wherever they are found – see the bathroom fan post and the woman’s shoes post).

Also I think that as soon as one person says to another person that your art (or music) in this case isn’t art is when the whole system caves in on itself. Like truth, art and beauty must in some way be beyond the judgments of individuals or even consensus.

I believe that people can form likes and dislikes of different art per say, however, art needs to be open an free for it remain art.

Furthermore, it has been argued that the only art that is truly art is that which has challenged the status quo and I think there can be a lot said about this perspective. Can we really call something art which is really a just a regimented reproduction of art that already exists with very little variation? I’m not so sure.

I’m struck by the sincerity of Mr Moore and Mr Cage and by the politeness and good humor with which the performance was received. Such was life in a civilized and tolerant nation.

pc