Dave

The notion of “slipping” art into the world and vise verse, seems so antiquated and formal at this time, however, when Cage argued to De Kooning that framing bread crumbs could help do so it was not the case. Cage’s response to chance operations ties in “self-alteration over self-expression,” as well he believes chance operations provide him opportunities in asking over choosing, which I believe to be a profound shift away from the ideas of expression. I especially enjoyed when the text touched on quantum physics in relation to Cage’s rigorous practice, saying “good science doesn’t modify the results because of the wishes of the scientist” and how “imitating nature in her manner of operations” proves the ways newer science has involved chance in theories and emphasized the importance of empty space. Cage also made a definite break with the figure ground hierarchy and this is an important development for any image-makers that believe such binaries do or do not exist. As for me, when Cage says “I think whatever appears does so by virtue of the emptiness of the space,” I begin to question how could any work such as Cage’s could fail to change the world we see outside of let’s say an art gallery. Lastly, I believe that because Cage set a parameter of defining qualities, which in later years became a shorter more succinct list, he became as close to Indeterminacy as possible, he understood structure as smaller structures divided thus seeking further alliance with Interpenetration, as for Devotion and Circumstances as well as the previous two mentioned, Cage’s operating words most certainly define themselves within the contexts of life and art.

The second reading was slightly confusing, although, I could certainly agree with stances on originality. The ideas of Poetic Metaphysics related to Rhythm Science that I also believe are related to Memes are interesting in explaining the “sociographic” emergence of cultures and myths, however, they discredit all other physical modes of thought previously existing for exploring such phenomena. Certainly to explain newness is to start from the beginning, however, new by definition is its own beginning. I enjoyed the part of the text when Emerson is quoted saying “it is as difficult to appropriate the work of others as it is to invent.” Consciousness as developing “material memory” is also something stated in the text I found to be most agreeable in the sense that it relates to past and future, as it is always ever present. For me “material memory” is somewhat like the trace misrepresented by the “logic of the particular” as Giles Deleuze calls it. Things can seem so confusing when debates of originality arise especially the way today’s geographic distance has been broken down by the Internet and complicates our view of already complex relationships between the appropriated and the new. There will always be something new, however, it will never arise without question of its influence.