4′33″, Ideas, and Medium in Appreciating Conceptual Art

Daniela Šterbáková

doi:10.33134/eeja.253

Abstract

How does John Cage’s conceptual work 4′33" communicate its meaning and how can we appreciate it? In this paper, I develop two competing interpretations to tackle these questions. First, drawing on Peter Goldie and Elisabeth Schellekens’s account of conceptual art (‘conceptualism’) and on Cage’s commentary on 4′33", I elaborate an overlooked idea that the work creates a new art form of conceptual music, which can be appreciated exclusively through the ideas it conveys. However, I argue that the conceptualist interpretation of 4′33" does not help us understand the work’s point, because it reveals a set of inconsistent claims about music and listening. The second interpretation draws on Julian Dodd’s view that the physical medium is irreducible in appreciating conceptual artworks (‘experientialism’). I develop this view by introducing a notion of a gesture to expand on how the performance of 4′33" contributes to its aesthetic appreciation and propose an alternative interpretation of the work’s meaning.

Highlights

The presentation of works of conceptual art is often accompanied by misunderstanding
During the premiere of Cage’s ‘silent’ piece 4′33′′ consisting of no intentionally composed sounds, the audience sitting in the Maverick Concert Hall in Woodstock was irritated by ‘not hearing anything’
Two Alternatives of Conveying Ideas: Carroll and Ravasio According to Dodd, 4′33′′ is a silent, rather than ‘sonically replete’ work: its score notates with silences, and these instructions are authoritative for instancing the work, as well as for interpreting it

Summary

Introduction

The presentation of works of conceptual art is often accompanied by misunderstanding. Cage’s point is more controversial, namely, that sounds heard during the performance of 4′33′′ are music and should be listened to as such.6 This anecdote takes us into the heart of the debate of how works of conceptual art communicate their ideas, and how we appreciate them. The latter view naturally leads to saying that the listener could turn away his or her attention from the sounds detected, and intentionally focus, at least for a short moment, on silence, which sometimes dominates in the aural field despite being relative This interpretation, that 4′33′′ is hard to appreciate conceptually because it puts forward an inapplicable and inconsistent idea, might be taken to imply too strict a criterion for conceptualism. Artworks embody thoughts or ideas, and if they achieved their purpose solely by the fact that their ideas are adopted, they would be ‘little more than a historical curiosity’.34

III.1. Two Alternatives of Conveying Ideas

III.2. Showing the Meaning through Performance

Conclusion