

When trolls had class... - sbraford
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WpVEpF9R8Q

======
mrtron
Kaufman confuses me...

You never know where the line is between him joking and him being serious.
Most people make what I think is the wrong assumption, that he was never
serious.

~~~
iamelgringo
He doesn't really confuse me, I just never really thought that he was funny.
For instance, I really don't find a man wrestling a woman to be that funny.
From that era (or a little later) I'd much rather watch watch Bill Murray,
George Carlin, Richard Pryor or John Belushi.

~~~
mrtron
But I think he was intending to be funny by being so unfunny.

For example the famous sketch where he got into a 'fight' on stage, the
audience was really into the sketch and he interrupted it right in the middle
to get in a cheesy fake fight. That sort of anti-humor was what he was trying
to achieve (or so I think). I agree a man wrestling a woman isn't funny, but
in the context of what he was doing I find it hilarious.

I really appreciate the way he keeps his audience in such suspense, as they
don't know what is planned and what is not, and they have no clue what will
come next. It really shows his success at it when people think he faked his
own death.

Belushi, Pyror and Murray are some of my favorite comedians, but they clearly
have different styles of their own too. Belushi was great at physical humor,
but someone might say they don't find someone acting obnoxious like that to be
funny.

That is a great part of comedy, not everyone enjoys the same things.

~~~
boredguy8
Another way of thinking about it: Cage's 4'33" isn't particularly interesting
as a standalone piece: it's only interesting in the context of music at the
time and its effect on avant-garde art. That's the sense in which I think of
him as the fool: Kaufman exposes assumptions and makes you say, "Oh holy shit,
he's breaking all the rules. Can he do that? Wait, why do we have these rules?
Are these good rules to have?"

~~~
anewaccountname
I generally think having sound in your music is a good rule to have.

~~~
boredguy8
There are at least three ways to answer that.

First, why?

Second, why doesn't the "sound of silence" count? Many composers utilize
silence within a composition for a certain effect. Cage just took that to an
extreme.

Third, some would argue that the sound of the audience-performer combination
constitutes the 'sound' of the composition in this case--a _musical_ breakdown
of the fourth wall. (Which is less cliche as an idea 50 years ago than it is
today.)

On the whole, I probably agree with you. But there's a certain richness or
fullness available to us after we've thought more rigorously about the
questions involved than if we hadn't. (Consider the difference between seeing
a sweet hack in a system you barely understand v. seeing a sweet hack in a
system with which you're very familiar - the later is a much more profound
experience.)

~~~
iamelgringo
Yeah. John Cage doesn't really do it for me, either. While I'm sure he's
philosophically important and all that. I'd much rather listen to a Mozart
sonata, Vivaldi, Copeland, Phillip Glass, Gorezki or Arvo Part. Heck. I'd
rather listen to the Bee Gee's than subject myself to John Cage for crying out
loud.

Same with so much of modern, deconstructionist art. You can look at Picasso's
cubist period, Pollock or Marcel DuChamp and say, "They break all the rules,
and make us question why we have the rules in the first place." And while that
keeps me interested for roughly 1 minute 15 seconds, I then want to look at
something beautifully done like Picasso's rose or blue periods, or perhaps
some Italian or Dutch masters. I can look at Renaissance master's paintings
for days on end because they actually followed the rules.

So, the same reason that I'd rather listen to Mozart over Cage is the same
reason that I'd much rather watch Bill Murray or John Belushi over Kaufman. Of
course, YMMV.

------
mynameishere
It's called a "heel".

