You never know where the line is between him joking and him being serious. Most people make what I think is the wrong assumption, that he was never serious.
He doesn't really confuse me, I just never really thought that he was funny. For instance, I really don't find a man wrestling a woman to be that funny. From that era (or a little later) I'd much rather watch watch Bill Murray, George Carlin, Richard Pryor or John Belushi.
But I think he was intending to be funny by being so unfunny.
For example the famous sketch where he got into a 'fight' on stage, the audience was really into the sketch and he interrupted it right in the middle to get in a cheesy fake fight. That sort of anti-humor was what he was trying to achieve (or so I think). I agree a man wrestling a woman isn't funny, but in the context of what he was doing I find it hilarious.
I really appreciate the way he keeps his audience in such suspense, as they don't know what is planned and what is not, and they have no clue what will come next. It really shows his success at it when people think he faked his own death.
Belushi, Pyror and Murray are some of my favorite comedians, but they clearly have different styles of their own too. Belushi was great at physical humor, but someone might say they don't find someone acting obnoxious like that to be funny.
That is a great part of comedy, not everyone enjoys the same things.
Another way of thinking about it: Cage's 4'33" isn't particularly interesting as a standalone piece: it's only interesting in the context of music at the time and its effect on avant-garde art. That's the sense in which I think of him as the fool: Kaufman exposes assumptions and makes you say, "Oh holy shit, he's breaking all the rules. Can he do that? Wait, why do we have these rules? Are these good rules to have?"
Second, why doesn't the "sound of silence" count? Many composers utilize silence within a composition for a certain effect. Cage just took that to an extreme.
Third, some would argue that the sound of the audience-performer combination constitutes the 'sound' of the composition in this case--a _musical_ breakdown of the fourth wall. (Which is less cliche as an idea 50 years ago than it is today.)
On the whole, I probably agree with you. But there's a certain richness or fullness available to us after we've thought more rigorously about the questions involved than if we hadn't. (Consider the difference between seeing a sweet hack in a system you barely understand v. seeing a sweet hack in a system with which you're very familiar - the later is a much more profound experience.)
Yeah. John Cage doesn't really do it for me, either. While I'm sure he's philosophically important and all that. I'd much rather listen to a Mozart sonata, Vivaldi, Copeland, Phillip Glass, Gorezki or Arvo Part. Heck. I'd rather listen to the Bee Gee's than subject myself to John Cage for crying out loud.
Same with so much of modern, deconstructionist art. You can look at Picasso's cubist period, Pollock or Marcel DuChamp and say, "They break all the rules, and make us question why we have the rules in the first place." And while that keeps me interested for roughly 1 minute 15 seconds, I then want to look at something beautifully done like Picasso's rose or blue periods, or perhaps some Italian or Dutch masters. I can look at Renaissance master's paintings for days on end because they actually followed the rules.
So, the same reason that I'd rather listen to Mozart over Cage is the same reason that I'd much rather watch Bill Murray or John Belushi over Kaufman. Of course, YMMV.
1. What does gender have to do with it? If two consenting adults choose to wrestle each other, why is gender an issue? I think it is inherently sexist to think that because it was a women, something about is 'wrong'. That being said, I think its hilarious when people stand in the face of convention, Andy was doing just that when he was the 'intergender' wrestling champ.
2. With Andy, you never know who was in on it. I would bet a lot of money that 90% of the women were in on it and were simply actors acting in a performance, which is essentially what wrestling is any ways, a performance.
11 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 33.9 ms ] threadYou never know where the line is between him joking and him being serious. Most people make what I think is the wrong assumption, that he was never serious.
For example the famous sketch where he got into a 'fight' on stage, the audience was really into the sketch and he interrupted it right in the middle to get in a cheesy fake fight. That sort of anti-humor was what he was trying to achieve (or so I think). I agree a man wrestling a woman isn't funny, but in the context of what he was doing I find it hilarious.
I really appreciate the way he keeps his audience in such suspense, as they don't know what is planned and what is not, and they have no clue what will come next. It really shows his success at it when people think he faked his own death.
Belushi, Pyror and Murray are some of my favorite comedians, but they clearly have different styles of their own too. Belushi was great at physical humor, but someone might say they don't find someone acting obnoxious like that to be funny.
That is a great part of comedy, not everyone enjoys the same things.
First, why?
Second, why doesn't the "sound of silence" count? Many composers utilize silence within a composition for a certain effect. Cage just took that to an extreme.
Third, some would argue that the sound of the audience-performer combination constitutes the 'sound' of the composition in this case--a _musical_ breakdown of the fourth wall. (Which is less cliche as an idea 50 years ago than it is today.)
On the whole, I probably agree with you. But there's a certain richness or fullness available to us after we've thought more rigorously about the questions involved than if we hadn't. (Consider the difference between seeing a sweet hack in a system you barely understand v. seeing a sweet hack in a system with which you're very familiar - the later is a much more profound experience.)
Same with so much of modern, deconstructionist art. You can look at Picasso's cubist period, Pollock or Marcel DuChamp and say, "They break all the rules, and make us question why we have the rules in the first place." And while that keeps me interested for roughly 1 minute 15 seconds, I then want to look at something beautifully done like Picasso's rose or blue periods, or perhaps some Italian or Dutch masters. I can look at Renaissance master's paintings for days on end because they actually followed the rules.
So, the same reason that I'd rather listen to Mozart over Cage is the same reason that I'd much rather watch Bill Murray or John Belushi over Kaufman. Of course, YMMV.
1. What does gender have to do with it? If two consenting adults choose to wrestle each other, why is gender an issue? I think it is inherently sexist to think that because it was a women, something about is 'wrong'. That being said, I think its hilarious when people stand in the face of convention, Andy was doing just that when he was the 'intergender' wrestling champ.
2. With Andy, you never know who was in on it. I would bet a lot of money that 90% of the women were in on it and were simply actors acting in a performance, which is essentially what wrestling is any ways, a performance.
When trolls had class indeed...