I found the piece "4’33”" very interesting and also confusing. I didn't really understand how the silence could be considered a performance or a piece of art. I understand the idea of wanting to try something new and see the reaction or outcome of doing nothing for a performance. But personally, I don't see the contributing factor of saying you're going to be performing and then not doing a performance. As the definition states for the word performing, it means to do something or accomplish something that is at hand. For instance, in John Cage's case, the task was a piano performance which is a piece of art. But sitting in front of the piano and not practicing or performing the art of the piano, I don't see how John Cage's "4’33”" is seen as an art form because he never performed the task at hand. While, yes, in the article, they do defend "4’33”" by speaking about how he took that risk and the first step to question what music really is in its art form. I just can't sit here and agree with these critics about saying this is a form of art. If the performance was just a performance, I could see this being an art performance because it's just the act, but since it was a piano performance, there is no way to say and really prove that he participated in an art performance. I also want to note that people paid to see this piano show, so that's also setting a false image to what a piano performance could be or look like
Comments