Chris Bonds in the course of a speculative posting writes:

>If we can't all be artists, we must at least UNDERSTAND what the artist
>is doing in order for art to have any social function at all.

I'd be more in agreement were the sentence recast to read:

If we can't all be artists, we must at least UNDERSTAND what the artist
is doing in order for __the artist__ to have any function at all.

As it is, Chris Bonds himself expresses some doubt as to whether Cage
entirely understands himself, which is to say thoroughly understands his
own music.  I'm also a doubter.  Quite a bit of Cage's later stuff strikes
me as utterly cryptic as well as highly unattractive.  You listen to it
once, maybe twice; you read a bit of expertise in an effort to dispel the
puzzlement.  And then, with a shrug, you must realize that it's time to
go on to something else--something that makes the effort to fulfil the
listener's requirements.  That's where the artist and his audience begin
to match up.

Denis Fodor                     Internet:[log in to unmask]