John Cage recital set to last 639 years recently witnessed a chord change

2025-03-3115:10218237www.spectator.co.uk

In the year 2000, in a small east German town, work began on the construction of an organ that had one purpose: to perform John Cage’s ORGAN2/ASLSP (1987) for precisely 639 years. The late avant-garde…

In the year 2000, in a small east German town, work began on the construction of an organ that had one purpose: to perform John Cage’s ORGAN2/ASLSP (1987) for precisely 639 years. The late avant-garde composer’s only instruction for the piece was to play the piece ‘as slowly as possible’. And so in 2001 – the instrument finally ready – the world’s longest organ recital began in St Burchardi church, Halberstadt, with a rest lasting 17 months before the first chord commenced droning in 2003. It consisted of two G sharps and a B. Two weeks ago, I – along with several hundred others – made the pilgrimage to the town to witness the work’s latest chord change.

In theory, a pipe organ can sound indefinitely, so long as it receives adequate power and its pedals are pressed continually. To eliminate the need for an organist, a system of sandbags suspended by strings delivers this pressure in Halberstadt.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By _petronius 2025-04-0311:5511 reply

    Some art-haters in the comments, so to defend this piece of contemporary art for a moment: one thing I love about it is a commitment to the long future of art, creativity, and civilization. What does it take to keep an instrument playing for six hundred years? To commit to that idea -- like the century-long projects of cathedral building in the middle ages, or the idea of planting trees you won't live to see mature -- is (to me) the awesome thing about the Halberstadt performance. All rendered in a medium (church organ) that has existed for an even longer time.

    It's a pretty hopeful, optimistic view of the future in a time of high uncertainty, but also represents a positive argument: it's worth doing these things because they are interesting, weird, and fun, and because they represent a continuity with past and future people we will never meet.

    Plus, you can already buy a ticket to the finale, so your distant descendants can go see it :)

    • By TheCondor 2025-04-0316:316 reply

      I'm not disagreeing with you, but you should invert the question and think about it.

      In the case of a cathedral, I think it is relatively easy to commit to the project you won't see through, it has a significance to those people making the commitment. What becomes much more challenging is when future generations don't have the same level of commitment, it's a much bigger ask to stop. Maybe there is a better use of the resources that could impact people immediately; if it's a church, I'm thinking feeding the hungry and clothing the naked sorts of things. It's hard to stop something that "we've just been doing." It's also hard to ask "why are we doing this?"

      In 200 years, suppose there is some crisis we cannot predict and the recital is to be interrupted or stopped. There will be an incredible amount of pressure on somebody to make a good choice. Pressure that was created by a distant ancestor, of sorts. That might be part of the beauty of it, that might be part of the bond that ties different people together throughout time and it might be wonderful. What if there is a caretaker that is ready to retire and cannot find the next caretaker? That seems like a horrible position to be in.

      Japan is or was doing multi-generational mortgages a while back (I assume they might still be.) as it was the only way a family could afford to buy a property. I can see that being a tremendously loving act for your children or grandchildren in providing a property that they will own, but I could just as well see it being a gigantic burden to them, what if they want to live somewhere else? Them following their bliss effectively changes the living and working future of the parents.

      • By dpc050505 2025-04-0316:49

        There's always an opportunity cost to making art. Taking your argument to it's extreme people should never paint or make music but instead spend all their time growing food and building homes (and distributing those goods because that's a big crux, we could feed everyone on the planet if we got food to the right people).

        The cool thing about freedom is that we don't have to be rational monks that are slave to economic utilitarism.

      • By mikepurvis 2025-04-0318:033 reply

        This conundrum comes up sometimes in the context of generational starships, about intermediate generations being born into bondage board, committed by their ancestors to a shitty life in a metal tube, with their only purpose being a preordained duty to keep a few systems operational and produce the next generation of slaves just so that eventually someone can birth the arrival generation.

        Alastair Reynolds' book Chasm City touches on a bunch of this, in particular the class warfare angle of some wealthy travelers getting to enjoy the journey in peaceful cryosleep while the poor ones pay for their passage in servitude.

        • By jstanley 2025-04-0319:262 reply

          > being born into bondage board, committed by their ancestors to a shitty life in a metal tube, with their only purpose being a preordained duty to keep a few systems operational and produce the next generation of slaves just so that eventually someone can birth the arrival generation.

          This isn't really so different from being born on Earth, except that we take being born on Earth for granted, and the population is really really big.

          • By guelo 2025-04-0321:041 reply

            We're all living in the world created by our ancestors. All their short sighted fuckups (lead poisoning, climate change) or triumphs (tech, art) is ours to bear.

            • By nostone 2025-04-040:33

              Life is conditioned and unfree get used to it.

          • By mikepurvis 2025-04-0320:181 reply

            Ehhh I see where you're coming from but I don't think it's quite the same. Here on Earth is the default, and while each individual's opportunities are greatly affected by the circumstances of their birth and parentage, with effort and luck there's a fair chance to change one's stars.

            Opting into an interstellar voyage is a significant reduction in opportunity for almost anyone.

            And yes, the same could be said for a European colonist crossing the Atlantic to the Americas in the 16th century, and many of them did face starvation, exposure, etc, but it's different when you're largely committing yourself and your immediate family to those hardships, under the belief that the timeframe for "a better life" is the next generation. Committing intermediate generations is a different beast.

            • By XorNot 2025-04-0321:29

              You're assuming life after the journey was guaranteed to be better, but not all colonists and immigrants happened to head to the world's future superpower.

              Every decision is potentially committing descendants to the consequences of that choice (and to wit: life aboard a generation ship hardly need be a miserable or undesirable one, at the size of say, a large town and surrounding hinterland you have as much or more opportunity as anyone else at most times in history - I think generation ships force us to confront uncomfortable questions about what is the meaning of life on Earth which we try to sweep aside by deciding they're an impossible moral burden).

        • By parpfish 2025-04-0318:104 reply

          I spend too much time thinking about all the stuff that can go wrong on generation ships.

          You take off for your destination, but when you get there you find out that humans back on earth made a faster ship 100 years after you left and beat you to the destination.

          You spent generations expecting to be bold explorers pushing the frontier and getting to claim nice territory, and you show up to find you’re in second place.

          • By mikepurvis 2025-04-0318:12

            I won't spoil it here, but you might really enjoy Chasm City; I recommend giving it a read. :)

          • By aaronax 2025-04-0319:01

            And that the highly-refined citizens of that future era think that your BO and deodorant are incredibly overpowering.

            (as described in Vogt's "Far_Centaurus" short story.

          • By 867-5309 2025-04-049:08

          • By Nursie 2025-04-042:00

            > You take off for your destination, but when you get there you find out that humans back on earth made a faster ship 100 years after you left and beat you to the destination.

            A theme that turns up in Starfield as well...

        • By ryandrake 2025-04-0319:31

          Heinlein also tackled some of these problems with generation ships in Orphans of the Sky[1].

          1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphans_of_the_Sky

      • By groby_b 2025-04-0317:32

        That's the beauty of a long-term commitment. You are stating so much confidence about the future that you say "yes, we can have a functioning society and set aside these resources".

        Sure, you can create scenarios were that fails. You can do that for anything. The power lies in saying "we are willing to remove these paths from consideration because we as a people are committed to not letting them occur".

        It's a model that fails if you apply first-order utilitarian calculus. But the intangible value of the hope and commitment in it likely overshadows any immediate gain. This isn't about how to maximize utilization or optionality. It's a bold statement about who we are, and a lodestar to aspire to. (Which is, ultimately, the job art does)

      • By lmm 2025-04-041:17

        > In 200 years, suppose there is some crisis we cannot predict and the recital is to be interrupted or stopped. There will be an incredible amount of pressure on somebody to make a good choice. Pressure that was created by a distant ancestor, of sorts. That might be part of the beauty of it, that might be part of the bond that ties different people together throughout time and it might be wonderful. What if there is a caretaker that is ready to retire and cannot find the next caretaker? That seems like a horrible position to be in.

        We have plenty of examples where this has already happened. Traditions that were maintained at significant cost in the face of difficulties or opposition. Caretakers of something ancient who struggle to find an heir. We tend to view them positively.

        > Japan is or was doing multi-generational mortgages a while back (I assume they might still be.) as it was the only way a family could afford to buy a property.

        I suspect this has been misreported. Japanese mortgage terms are pretty normal and property prices are much lower than in the west (even the bubble only really affected central Tokyo). There's a practice of an elderly parent being able to get a mortgage that's then "inherited" by a child, in cases where the parent is retired or close to retirement, but it's pretty much a face-saving (and tax-avoidance) measure.

      • By hinkley 2025-04-0316:521 reply

        They couldn’t even quarry the Washington Monument out of a single color of stone. It’s not that visible in pictures but if you go see it on a sunny day it’s hard to ignore that stupid line in the middle.

        If you take too long building a cathedral the quarry might exhaust itself in the meantime. So even if you keep to the design it might not look right.

        > The outside facing consists, due to the interrupted building process, of three different kinds of white marble.

        • By marc_abonce 2025-04-046:15

          For some cathedrals that visible mismatch in the materials might be a feature, not a bug.

          At least that's the case for the co-cathedral in Zamora, Michoacán which had its construction interrupted for almost a century due to the Mexican Revolution, the Cristero War and its subsequent expropriation by the government. In this context, the mismatching facade remains as a testament of the building's history.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocesan_Sanctuary_of_Our_Lady...

      • By jl6 2025-04-0316:421 reply

        Maybe a crisis will occur and maybe our descendants will have to make a tough choice, but that could enrich the story of the performance. If they choose to end the performance for whatever reason, that’s their business. The hopes and desires of one generation can only hold sway over the next for so long.

        • By jacobgkau 2025-04-0318:101 reply

          > If they choose to end the performance for whatever reason, that’s their business.

          Well, in this case, "you can already buy a ticket to the finale, so your distant descendants can go see it." Selling tickets for an event that far in the future makes it the business of the ticket purchaser and whoever they leave the tickets for.

          Is the money collected from the tickets being held in such a way that it can be refunded if/when this project fails before another 600 years have gone by? If not, it seems like a potential scam in that sense.

          • By dahart 2025-04-0320:241 reply

            No need to speculate wildly or cast unsupported aspersions. The funds from the “Final Ticket” sales are explicitly a financial contribution to supporting the project. Nobody buying one is unaware of that fact, there’s no potential for scam.

            • By jacobgkau 2025-04-0321:242 reply

              It's not wild to speculate that a ticket I buy for an event 600 years in the future might not be honored. People get screwed over on pre-orders with timetables far smaller than that.

              Again, if they sell something they're calling a ticket to the final part of the performance, then they have a financial duty to keep the project going (or refund the ticket) and it's not "their business" to end the project early like the person I replied to was claiming. At the very best, they could invest the money and use only the interest to support ongoing operations, but they need to keep the original value available to refund or else they need to fulfill what the ticket's for-- if they do neither of those things, they ripped people off, period.

              If they're just funding the project's continuation, it's on them for pulling the marketing stunt (and/or false advertising) of calling it a ticket for this event in 600 years instead of just taking donations, selling present-day tickets and/or merch, etc. Fine print saying "actually, this ticket isn't a real ticket, it's just for fun" doesn't make them look better to me, so I don't see how that'd be a defense in your mind.

              • By kelnos 2025-04-046:51

                > It's not wild to speculate that a ticket I buy for an event 600 years in the future might not be honored. People get screwed over on pre-orders with timetables far smaller than that.

                I think you're framing this in the wrong way. Anyone buying a ticket knows there is no guarantee that this finale will occur, or that even if it does, that whatever entity in is in charge of it by then will honor the tickets. They treat this as a donation to something they care about, and the ticket is a cute gift of appreciation. And on top of that, the descendants of the ticket-purchasers may have lost the tickets generations ago, not even know about them, or not even care.

                Suggesting that people are getting "screwed over" is unnecessarily dramatic.

              • By dahart 2025-04-0323:101 reply

                Again, the terms of the purchase are explicitly laid out. Maybe go read them? It’s not a marketing stunt, not false advertising, and it is a real ticket. It’s a financial contribution to the project, same as any donation. You can rationalize your speculation and assumptions but the terms of the deal aren’t confusing anyone buying these tickets. Donations with merch attached to them as ‘thank yous’ are absolutely standard practice, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Regardless, I guarantee nobody who buys one will be alive to redeem the ticket. Your best choice, if you were hoping to be there, or if you don’t want to contribute is to not purchase a Final Ticket. Aside from that, there’s really no call for muckraking. Zero people will be duped, they are extremely clear with their intent.

                • By jacobgkau 2025-04-0323:482 reply

                  > Regardless, I guarantee nobody who buys one will be alive to redeem the ticket.

                  I agree 100%, which is part of what makes it such an easy scam to pull off!

                  You're attempting to sell this thing as a donation with a fake toy Monopoly-money not-actually-expected-to-be-redeemed ticket thrown in. The top commenter of this thread shouldn't have tried to include the ticket as a serious value-add if that's what it is. The comment specifically said "you can already buy a ticket to the finale, so your distant descendants can go see it [using the ticket]," not "so you can support the project out of the kindness of your own heart without any guarantee your descendants will get to see the finale."

                  • By kelnos 2025-04-046:53

                    Jesus, maybe dial the cynicism down a bit. This is not that serious. It's a fun thing where people get to donate to a bit of art they care about, and get a token of appreciation in return. I doubt any of these "purchasers" really care all that much if their descendants actually end up able to go to a finale in 600 years, outside of the "wouldn't it be cool if..." sense.

                  • By dahart 2025-04-040:23

                    Smh. It’s not a scam, and it is a serious value add, and a real ticket. For someone, just not you. And only if the project survives, which is why they’re fundraising. https://www.aslsp.org/the_final_ticket.html

    • By hbsbsbsndk 2025-04-0312:086 reply

      It's not surprising that people who love AI and NFTs are willfully ignorant about what makes art meaningful. It's a sadly transactional view of the world.

      • By mingus88 2025-04-0314:544 reply

        It’s obvious that many people in this industry believe themselves to be supremely intelligent and curious hacker types, yet they obviously never taken a humanities course.

        They have a huge blind spot that they aren’t even aware of, or worse just devalue the entire history of human thought and creation that doesn’t involve hard science.

        • By trbleclef 2025-04-0320:392 reply

          Your comment will rattle a few cages here but I honestly think about this all the time, as one of the minority of music educators around HN. The blind spots (or perhaps a STEM vs STEAM upbringing) are unfortunate. We are possibly the only — or one of an incredibly small number of — species that even makes sounds solely for enjoyment and aesthetics. The humanities are what make us us.

          • By Vegenoid 2025-04-047:491 reply

            We're also the only species that can use abstraction to assign meaning to and relations between symbols in any way we choose. The humanities and the sciences are both extremely important to what makes us human, and saying that only one is 'what makes us us' will alienate those who are different from you.

            That you are primarily driven by music and aesthetics, and others are primarily driven by science and technological creation, and most of us are driven by both in varying degrees - that is what makes us human.

            • By trbleclef 2025-04-0421:13

              I'm driven by all four. That's why I'm here! My point is that current culture as a whole allows for a large deficit in individuals' understanding the humanities. Especially around here, you will see comments suggesting that the humanities are not necessary, or are not viable career paths, etc.

              It's not that one drive is more important than the other. It is that we as a contemporary society often treat arts that way. Your drive is vital too!

          • By ddingus 2025-04-0323:05

            Indeed!

            I am a strong tech person. Always have been.

            That said, early in my life I took a chance on music and really enjoyed the performing arts. Through an unfortunate set of circumstances, I ended up doing Music education for my peers.

            A beloved teacher had a health issue that left them unable to teach and the substitute did not have the same manner and appreciation for the music and after a few conflicts, they called me out and I (foolishly) accepted!

            Now I just had to back it up with actions.

            Short story, "my" class was a success. Students reached their goals, we placed well in competition and that teacher and I developed a great friendship.

            You are dead on with your comment. And having had the chance to take music education, then turn right around and deliver it seriously was at once crazy and ultra enlightening!

            I had the realization my chest thumping got me placed into a position where I had an obligation to educate my peers and rid them of that blind spot you wrote of the same as was done for me.

            And that was the H in "hard." Running the class, prepping pieces for performance, debugging the choir all were what I thought was hard.

            Nope.

            Getting them to internalize the humanity of it, language of emotion and all that, is hard. Respect for the art, whatever it may be, is hard. Cultivating the culture of learning, shared vulnerability (in the case of group performing arts) and the intensely personal nature of it all is hard.

            I grew half a decade doing that as a high schooler, who had no clue at all what they said yes to...

            In the end, a walk through the humanities is both empowering and enlightening on a level many technical people fail to appreciate.

            No fault of theirs. They just did not get what I and many others did or gave as the case may be.

            I can put a notch sharper point on all this for passersby (assuming you and I talking is preaching to the choir):

            The ones who do not take the trip through the humanities are often told what to do by the ones who did.

            Thanks for doing the hard work you do. It is often underappreciated.

        • By dontlikeyoueith 2025-04-0317:221 reply

          Most of them don't value hard science either.

          • By kristopolous 2025-04-0317:511 reply

            barbrook wrote an essay about this 30 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology

            Still on the nose.

            • By hbsbsbsndk 2025-04-0814:08

              Incredibly prescient. This quote from 2011 really sums it up:

              > The original promise of the Californian Ideology, was that the computers would liberate us from all the old forms of political control, and we would become Randian heroes, in control of our own destiny. Instead, today, we feel the opposite—that we are helpless components in a global system—a system that is controlled by a rigid logic that we are powerless to challenge or to change.

        • By nottorp 2025-04-0319:121 reply

          Ok but why would you need a "humanities course" to appreciate art?

          • By mingus88 2025-04-0320:531 reply

            You don’t. It’s a great way to get an introduction to a field outside of your typical realm of expertise though.

            It’s one of those things that really lets you know how much you don’t know. Then when you comment about such things on the internet you might be open to learning more, as opposed to what many folk in this thread are doing.

            • By nottorp 2025-04-048:14

              I don't know, I don't want to become an expert. I just enjoy my books and paintings and sculptures and architecture...

              The problems appear when you start assigning a monetary value to everything you do.

        • By dmoy 2025-04-0320:16

          I can appreciate art, and play music at a pretty damn good level myself, but still think that John Cage is totally wack.

          I don't dislike all strange music - Satie and Poulenc are some of my favorites. But a lot of John Cage's stuff is... no longer music.

          Like I'm sorry, but 4'33" is not music.

          I draw a line somewhere, and a lot of John Cage's stuff is wayyyyyyyyy the fuck over the line.

          Sure maybe it's some kind of art, but it's not music.

      • By plastic-enjoyer 2025-04-0316:452 reply

        We call this people "Fachidioten" in Germany, people who are really good at their craft but absolute morons in every other field. Unfortunately, these are the people that dominate tech and you can see this in how technology develops.

        • By egypturnash 2025-04-0317:25

          Google Translate renders this in English as "Specialist idiots" and I like that.

        • By TiredOfLife 2025-04-0321:062 reply

          But that word equally describes artists

          • By eszed 2025-04-0415:06

            It can. Qualitatively - having spent the first half of my working life in the arts, and now the second nearly-half in tech - all I can say is that serious artists are every bit as smart and driven and interesting as are the serious people in tech. They just don't make as much money, so they don't get much respect.

          • By whstl 2025-04-047:22

            Celebrities !== Artists

      • By AlexandrB 2025-04-0319:241 reply

        I don't see how that follows. Avant-garde music of this type is basically an NFT already. All of its value is in the novelty, none is in the aesthetics. The meaning of the piece is completely externalized to the identity of its author and the history of its composition and cannot be derived from observing the piece itself. That describes NFTs to a tee! The only thing missing the layer of cryptography on top.

        • By whstl 2025-04-047:26

          > Avant-garde music of this type is basically an NFT already. All of its value is in the novelty, none is in the aesthetics.

          That's painting things with a broad brush and a wrong one at that.

          Ironically, there's plenty of avant-garde art that is 100% about the aesthetics, to the point people complain they were "made without technique".

      • By lolinder 2025-04-0323:27

        This is an incredibly reductive dismissal of a very diverse group of people who don't find Cage's art in particular to be meaningful.

      • By airstrike 2025-04-0320:01

        Why are you making such sweeping assumptions about us? I studied architecture and art history for over a year, I'm the son of a painter, I have an uncle who's a Grammy-winning musician and an aunt who's a musical scholar who literally has a doctorate degree on John f* Cage of all people... which is to say I grew up surrounded by art. I've visited every museum you can name this side of the Berlin Wall's remains, many more than once.

        I have a degree in humanities, another in business and another in computer science.... and while I still don't mind Cage that much, I do think most of contemporary art is absolute shit.

        I don't have to agree with you for my opinion to have value. You need to learn to name call people less and make your points on the merits of arguments. It's tiring for everyone else to engage otherwise.

      • By BoingBoomTschak 2025-04-0317:541 reply

        [flagged]

        • By HelloMcFly 2025-04-0318:333 reply

          I get the frustration with art discourse that it can feel exclusionary or pretentious. There are definitely versions of that discussion that are more about gatekeeping than appreciation.

          I think the original, parent comment was coming from a much more generous place. Like that top parent commenter, to me the Halberstadt organ piece isn’t about being highbrow or obscure; it’s about a kind of radical optimism—committing to something weird, beautiful, and long-term in a world that often feels very short-sighted. I don’t think you need to read Derrida or listen to Stockhausen to find meaning in that. Just as you don’t need to love AI or NFTs to appreciate innovation.

          Many may think that's stupid or useless because it lacks utility (or any other reason) or seems arbitrary. Reasonable people can disagree, but I think such reactions are truly missing the point; that is simultaneously completely OK, but also personally dispiriting at times. There’s room for a lot of perspectives in how we engage with art, and I think it’s more interesting when we try to understand what someone finds meaningful before writing it off.

          • By ryandrake 2025-04-0319:351 reply

            Art Appreciation is such a mystical skill! I would have never even remotely thought of OP's take upon reading a description of this art piece. I'm just not wired to come up with takeaways like that. When I hear about "weird" art project, my mind usually just thinks "Well, I guess that's just how this guy wanks" and I just don't seem to have the brain to divine the kind of stuff that OP wrote about!

            • By HelloMcFly 2025-04-0412:03

              I think you do have the brain, but maybe you're framing it wrong! When you come across art that seems unapproachable or strange to you, the last question you should ask is "What did the artist mean by this?" Instead, first think "What does this make me feel?" The answer may often be nothing, but then in the spirit of curiosity follow it up with "What might others who love this art be responding to?"

              Sometimes for me, I need to take myself out of trying to "solve" the art piece and be intentional about viewing it with a different, less literal mindset. It's still me doing the thinking, but it kind of short-circuits my normal interaction with the world.

              Or maybe that's just a bunch of blowhard bullshit, I don't know, but it is what I do.

          • By BoingBoomTschak 2025-04-0319:001 reply

            You should mind that old saying about not being so open-minded that your brain falls out.

            While the questions "what is art" and "what is beauty" are indeed interesting, this doesn't help in any way.

            There's no substance, it wouldn't get a thousandth of this attention if it was made by a nobody and isn't even fit to be called a meme: it's something between outrage bait and an insipid conversation piece, a transparent (thus vulgar) case of "muddying the water to make it seem deep". But the whole intellectual "class" being so devoid of people upright enough to call out the naked emperor is much less benign than that: a clear symptom of decadence.

            • By HelloMcFly 2025-04-0320:35

              I think it’s possible to critique art, institutions, or trends without assuming everyone who finds meaning in something is deluded or complicit in cultural decline. Dismissing curiosity or optimism as decadence seems like its own kind of absolutism. Reasonable people can still find value in things even when you don’t, which is kind of my main point. Your comment makes me a little sad, but not for me.

          • By dogleash 2025-04-0319:051 reply

            > I think the original, parent comment was coming from a much more generous place.

            I don't. Equating questioning a piece with willful ignorance and a safe-to-hate caricature all smell of bile to me.

            "nerds too nerd to art" (more specifically in this case "hustler too hustle for art") is just a grade school putdown we use as artists to perpetuate the inaccessibility of art conversations and keep our cool mystique up.

            • By HelloMcFly 2025-04-0320:151 reply

              Sorry, you've got me wrong: I'm referring to the original, OP parent comment of this full thread. So, three comments up from mine in the tree. The one that begins "Some art-haters in the comments, so to defend..."

    • By tshaddox 2025-04-0319:591 reply

      It's a neat goal to keep an organ playing for hundreds of years. I just don't think that's related to the musical composition itself, which is not impressive to me. The fact that Cage added the phrase "as slow as possible" is not, in my opinion, musically interesting.

      It would be analogous to writing a screenplay, adding the note "produce the film using as much money as possible," and then having someone attempt to do that. It's technically impressive to spend $500 million on a film production, sure, but that small note at the end of the screenplay is not cinematically interesting.

      • By brookst 2025-04-044:591 reply

        Cage created art that transcends music and you are rightfully noting that it is not that impressive when judged solely on musical merit.

        It’s like saying a dodecahedron isn’t that impressive when viewed sitting on a 2D plane because it’s just a triangke and there are more interesting 2D shapes. True, but so reductive it’s tautological.

        • By tshaddox 2025-04-0417:09

          In what way does it transcend music? What other form of art, other than music, is he operating in?

    • By globular-toast 2025-04-047:021 reply

      Yeah, something has been lost in current generations. I'm reminded of Asimov's Foundation books where the protagonist dies at the beginning but leaves behind the foundations of a thousand-year plan to rebuild civilisation after the collapse that he predicts including a time capsule that opens following predicted crises.

      I feel like such ideas are of a time, namely the 1950s when things were looking up. Nowadays I feel like everyone is aware that Earth is basically finished but we have no way off of it, so they just try to squeeze as much joy as they can before they die without any thought towards the future at all.

      This even comes out in smaller cycles like writing software that works today with no thought about how it will look in a decade. I feel like the stuff they were doing even in 90s was done with the intention of being around for a very long time. Now it's like, yagni, just write any old shit that works.

      • By grues-dinner 2025-04-049:22

        Some Anathem vibes too!

        Regarding the YAGNI stuff, that applies to whole companies. All you have to do is stack the cobbled-together shit high enough to get bought and exit. Even the founders aren't in it for a sustainable long term business. In fact that goal is derisively called a "lifestyle business".

    • By korkybuchek 2025-04-0319:33

      Assume you already know about this given your interests, but just in case: https://longnow.org/

    • By mcv 2025-04-057:55

      And while it may be contemporary avant garde now, by the time the performance is finished, it will be a timeless classic.

    • By 7bit 2025-04-0316:50

      Does the ticket come with a snorkeling set?

    • By 13_9_7_7_5_18 2025-04-0312:20

      [dead]

    • By wtcactus 2025-04-0314:242 reply

      [flagged]

      • By dang 2025-04-0315:47

        "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

        https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

      • By mingus88 2025-04-0314:571 reply

        If you have ever dabbled in philosophy at all, your notion of “real art” would be the first thing you would have to challenge.

        “What is music” is one of those questions that leads to some truly subversive trains of thought and it’s amazing to read all of you so called hackers having trouble wrapping your head around a work that goes against your comfortable worldview.

        • By wtcactus 2025-04-0315:032 reply

          [flagged]

          • By mingus88 2025-04-0315:12

            The set of requirements evolved and changed throughout history as our did our culture and society.

            We do still have a set of requirements for what is considered art, and we still have a set of hyper conservative gatekeepers that are resistant to change and will blame today’s boogeyman for everything that they feel is wrong with society

          • By piva00 2025-04-0315:101 reply

            By God, you are truly a trifecta of clichés converging.

            Where exactly have you got this narrative from? Or even better: please explain how Marxism relates to contemporary art, I can accept just a general line of ideals connecting to each other.

            I tried to have some leveled way to see your opinions on my other comments but this went a bridge too far, you seem to be repeating a collage of unrelated stuff, as I said in another comment: it's so bad that it isn't even wrong.

            • By wtcactus 2025-04-0315:192 reply

              That is general knowledge, but if you really want to go down that way of "where did you get this narrative from" to try and avoid the subject. Well, you can see it, for instance, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for starters. [1]

              [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

              • By petsfed 2025-04-0317:321 reply

                By just about any reasonable accounting, the willful deconstruction of the concept of art reached its peak during and after World War I (e.g. Dadaism), specifically because of the wanton and apparently pointless destruction of an entire generation of French, British, Germans, and Russians (and others besides, but they bore the brunt of it). There was a very widespread questioning of traditional mores, which arguably bolstered the broader Marxist cause, but its definitely an inversion of causality to say that Marxism caused existentialism.

                • By wtcactus 2025-04-0319:502 reply

                  But, Dadaism, for instance, was a far left movement. Its followers, were people that held radical or even far left views. [1]

                  Marxism is really a cancer that destroys everything it touches. Its final aim was always to destroy everything that is beautiful, elevated or pure about mankind, and we, as a society, have been sponsoring it with our taxpayer money that pays for the self anointed gatekeepers of intellectualism that populate a big part of our Academia - that is to say, all Academia that doesn't get judged by the outcomes of their ideas when applied in practice.

                  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

                  • By piva00 2025-04-0412:471 reply

                    If your definition of leftism is "progressive" then I'm sorry to tell you: all advances in art were made by people you'd consider "leftists".

                    There is simply no way that a conservative worldview brings any art form forward, not even from classically-inspired backgrounds, by pure definition it attempts to keep the status quo, and all they achieve is a soulless repetition of what art was from the period they considered as "golden".

                    Not much dissimilar to what you are trying to do, to be honest.

                    • By wtcactus 2025-04-0414:371 reply

                      I'm not sure if you realized, but you are not any kind of intellectual authority in any matter related to art. The idea that all artists are leftist is just imbecile, to say the least.

                      You are just part - probably only a satellite - of the self pleasing circle of modern art critics that ultimately live on the backs of the working man.

                      People that write stuff like this about a urinal on a wall:

                      "Arensberg had referred to a 'lovely form' and it does not take much stretching of the imagination to see in the upside-down urinal's gently flowing curves the veiled head of a classic Renaissance Madonna or a seated Buddha or, perhaps more to the point, one of Brâncuși's polished erotic forms."

                      • By petsfed 2025-04-0417:00

                        I don't think all artists are leftists, but I do believe that all art that has a broad impact is progressive in character, if not in intent.

                        Did the Renaissance painters who used single-point-perspective do so in service of seizing the means of production? Obviously not. But they did do so knowing full well that it was a break from the previous art styles, and that such a break was a good thing. Likewise for the rise of the novel, the fall of meter in poetry, digital and electronic art, etc etc

                        At the end of the day, one of the better (although still incomplete) differentiators between art and simply craft is the deliberate pursuit of novelty of expression. That is, an artist is always trying to say something new, or say something in a new way. You can be exceptionally good at producing the exact same painting, but that doesn't make you an artist, simply a craftsman (and there is nothing wrong with being a craftsman).

                  • By petsfed 2025-04-0322:11

                    Broadly speaking, all existentialism was leftist in character because its core tenet was a rejection of old ways. Definitionally, you cannot reject the old order without being liberal/progressive/leftist/etc. Which, again, was in response to the 15-20 million killed during WWI, the most deadly 4 years in Europe since the plague years.

                    Again, I think you're inverting causality by blaming Marxism for post-modernism, when they are instead related results of the same overall trend, that was simply catalyzed by WWI (there's definitely a read on e.g. the 1917 Russian Revolution that it happens at least wildly differently without Tsarist Russia entering the war).

              • By sdf4j 2025-04-0316:001 reply

                What about Marxism?

                • By wizzwizz4 2025-04-0316:05

                  > A sixth, broadly Marxian sort of objection rejects the project of defining art as an unwitting (and confused) expression of a harmful ideology.

                  But I don't think many serious critiques of "this is not art" claims invoke Marxism. The Marxist perspective generalises the idea that art is incredibly difficult to define, but doesn't originate it.

    • By seydor 2025-04-0317:541 reply

      Cage died in 1992 , this is not contemporary art

  • By cess11 2025-04-0310:05

    Less known than 4'33" being "silent" (which it's not) is that John Cage was an anarchist.

    "Both Fuller and Marshall McLuhan knew, furthermore, that work is now obsolete. We have invented machines to do it for us. Now that we have no need to do anything what shall we do? Looking at Fuller's Geodesic World Map we see that the earth is a single island. Oahu. We must give all the people all they need to live in any way they wish. Our present laws protect the rich from the poor. If there are to be laws we need ones that begin with the acceptance of poverty as a way of life. We must make the earth safe for poverty without dependence on government."

    https://monoskop.org/images/9/9c/Cage_John_Anarchy_New_York_... (PDF)

    A shorter read here:

    https://www.themarginalian.org/2015/09/15/john-cage-silence-...

  • By labrador 2025-04-0317:385 reply

    639 years? Big deal, The Long Now foundation built a clock to last 10,000 years. I hate John Cage since I got his massive world-wide hit 4′33″ stuck in my head.

    • By margalabargala 2025-04-0318:332 reply

      > The Long Now foundation built a clock to last 10,000 years

      The Long Now Foundation is attempting to build a clock to last 10,000 years.

      Construction began close to a decade ago, and there is no estimated completion date. Construction of the clock may well last 10,000 years.

      • By Rebelgecko 2025-04-0320:14

        I think at one point the Van Horn TX clock was considered a "prototype" or another one that would be built incorporating lessons learned, although I don't know if that's still the plan.

        Coincidentally the clock will ring with a cycle of chimes that repeats every 10,000 years

      • By tbrownaw 2025-04-041:32

        > The Long Now Foundation is attempting to build a clock to last 10,000 years.

        The pyramids are only half that old, and they've accumulated a fair bit of damage despite being solid stone.

    • By muppetman 2025-04-0318:211 reply

      I just need you to know that I went and googled "John Cage 4'33" " and now I am quite upset with you for this comment!!!

      • By labrador 2025-04-0318:341 reply

        It's quite an ear worm!

        • By shawn_w 2025-04-0319:27

          Every time I listen I notice something new in it.

    • By speed_spread 2025-04-0318:231 reply

      One thing I like about 4′33″ is that it is very compressible, especially the studio version. The live version, a little less so.

      • By labrador 2025-04-0323:28

        I like it stretched. The 800% slower version is amazing.

    • By pfd1986 2025-04-0318:21

      The foundation cocktail place in SF has some art on the wall that changes every minute. I can't remember if by John Cage or someone else..

    • By globular-toast 2025-04-047:07

      You joke but my current goal in life is to be able to wake up somewhere that I can enjoy 4'33" every day. I'm just so sick of the noise.

HackerNews