When attempting to relate John Cage to other musicians and artists that may have been influenced by his thoughts, composition and music of chance. The first artist that immediately came to mind was Jackson Pollack.

A couple months ago I had the absolute pleasure of going to MoMA in New York (I say this entirely seriously; I love MoMA). Starting from the top floor down, my boyfriend and I perused the works starting chronologically. Around floor 7 of 8 we encountered none other than Jackson Pollack. Prior to this I had tried my best explaining to him a little art history and it seemed to help latch on to a rather unfamiliar medium for him. When Pollack came up, he pleaded "Alyssa, what the hell does this even mean?", and I was speechless. I didn't know what to say to describe Pollack's works, other than I knew they were typically completed using the 'drip' method, a technique that is very chance related.

So upon looking into Mr. Pollack's works, I found a quote from an interview with the artist, describing how he goes about 'composing' his works:

"My painting does not come from the easel. I prefer to tack the unstretched canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting.......When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well."

I saw the importance of his frame of mind similar to that of a performer working on the music of Cage. When performing Cage, you are not fully aware of every sound or silence that occurs until you become more acquainted with the music and truly allow yourself to "live in" it. This can be also true of any piece of music really, but often such care in performance is dismissed quickly.

More important, at least in this story, is the audience's role in the music or artwork. Pollack gave his works traditional names, but gave up this practice in favor of a simple numbering system. He said he wished the audience to,"...look passively and try to receive what the painting has to offer and not bring a subject matter or preconceived idea of what they are to be looking for."
Perhaps those who have trouble appreciating art like Pollack's or music like Cage's bring a certain expectation to viewing and listening...and that expectation is, ironically, that there should be an expectation for the audience in the first place! (Read that aloud to assist in syntax, it sounds so strange!). Much like my experience at MoMA, he was trying to fit Pollack's painting into a framework of familiarity, just how the artist would not like it!

Another short point I found ironic was that Pollack favored numbering to allow the art to speak for itself to the all-important audience, but rather a self-centered egomaniac like Babbitt felt there was so much meaning in a title and often gave descriptive titles that were allegedly supposed to evoke the piece ("The Joy of More Sextets, Sheer Pluck", etc.). Even though Babbitt didn't consider his audience to be of any importance, he still went through the process of picking evocative titles. Yes, it draws me in, but does it allow the listener to form their own framework of the music?" Luckily I don't feel as though Cage succumbs to the "catchy title train" and therefore allows the music to speak for itself far more than with a contrived title.

I will leave you with Pollack's painting, "No. 5 (1948)".



I won't tell you what I see; wouldn't want to give you any kind of pre-concieved notions!