In my earlier discussion of John Cage, I mentioned how he was primarily occupied with pieces that had no explicit political statement to make. In this reading, however, I learned about his anarchist beliefs and his very intentional efforts to simulate anarchist musical utopia within at least one piece: the ambitious and theatrical HPSCHD. Ironically, this piece celebrates the computer (a novelty in the 60's) even as it strives toward utopian ideals. Perhaps in the 60's there was still positive energy surrounding the new technology, rather than the Big Brother/NSA paranoia of the present day.
Cage meant nothing less than for this piece to "prepare" his audience for a larger revolution in art and which would result in a utopian, anarchist society where everyone contributed and there was no overriding ethical system. Something deep inside me cringes at these kinds of proclamations. The idea of a utopian society driven by art sounds amazing, but I shiver at the unfamiliarity of the situation and at the near-impossibility that such a thing could happen. I bristle at the sheer radicalism of the 60's counterculture; I can't imagine what the electricity of that period felt like. Maybe that same reaction of repulsion is the same reason I had trouble all through my childhood and early adulthood allowing myself to completely enter into a church worship setting. I was afraid of being radically changed.
 |
| It's interesting to ponder these ideas while knowing that there's at least one intentional community right here in Ithaca (the EcoVillage). |
From what I could glean from the description, HPSCHD is a rebellion against concert-music conventions but also a modern answer to Wagner's gesamtkunstwerk. The piece has no perceptible beginning, multiple unrelated events play out on the stage, and music is only part of the total spectacle. In contrast to Wagner, who held tight singular control over his artistic projects, the gesamtkunstwerk of HPSCHD is the result of the efforts of many artists from different fields collaborating. Additionally, Wagner's operas had political uses, making a case for the superiority of the Aryan race and for the Holocaust, whereas Cage's work aligns itself with no government or race. Copland said of this phenomenon: "What Cunningham, Cage, and company make amply evident is that the Wagnerian model for collaboration is not the only model - indeed, today, not even the dominant model". In the excitement and rapid changes of the 60's, maybe this joyous cooperation did feel like the beginning a new age. What happened?
One thing that really stood out to me about HPSCHD, and which points back to this idea of cooperation, is the fact that the audience was allowed to walk around the room and view different elements of the performance as they wished. I see this as a poignant act of understanding from one artist to another. Composers have always had the disadvantage of working in an art form that has a fixed duration (usually) and has a fairly static visual element. If the audience is allowed to create their own visual experience of the performance, and supposedly to come and go as they please, the musical elements are on the same level as the visual art elements.
 |
| HPSCHD. Welcome to the future. |
I watched a clip of an actual performance of HPSCHD, and I was surprised at how much it all made sense even just from my detached perspective. I saw the whole scene, underpinned by pleasant harpsichord music, as a quirky but inviting manifesto of Cage's whole anarchist movement. The anachronistic music both gives it a sense of timelessness and conveys a sense of order. The visuals I saw in the clip were mesmerizing: undulating blobs of color on video screens and flashing lights. For the two minutes that I watched, I felt a childlike glee and a sense of hope in composers and artists who dare to push boldly forward and try to create societal change with their art.
No comments:
Post a Comment