Henk Borgdorff’s assumption that the artworks are the “driving forces of the experiment” and are the epistemic things of artistic practices in themselves (p. 193). It is worth considering where to look for epistemic things other than only in the materiality of art, because how does this work when an artwork is dependent on a score, description or script?

First of all, we need to consider that music perhaps should be approached differently than a work of visual art when talking about materiality. Philosopher Nelson Goodman famously distinguished between autographic and allographic arts, the decisive difference being that in allographic art there is a system of notion that “provides the means for distinguishing the properties constitutive of a work from all contingent properties,” this system of notion then fixes the features and the limits of permissible variation in each. (Goodman, as quoted by Van de Vall 2015, p.7).

Art historian Liz Kotz adds that conceptual use of language in scores is not to be presented as a “withdrawal of visuality” and “dematerialization,” but rather as a model for a difference kind of materiality, that of of repletion, temporality and delay, that can be found in performances and events (2001, p.83). Event scores thus open up even more possibilities, because they (partly) consist of text: “these texts that can be read as music scores, visual art, poetic texts, performance instructions or proposals for some kind of action”(p.56).

The Halberstadt performance of Organ²/ASLSP poses some difficulties straight away in this respect. Each performance of the piece is based on a score, but because of the vagueness of the  text on the score — which instructs one to play ‘as slow as possible’— problems arise. Philosopher Jérôme Dokic questions if you could in fact categorize John Cage’s work as allographic work. In allographic works one could say that “a score, regardless of the system of notation used, defines the allographic work of art” (Goodman, as quoted by Dokic 1998, p.104). John Cage however, Dokic argues, often complicates this process as “some elements in the composition are explicitly left open,” the scores of Cage do not have the goal to specify the principles of his compositions in order to come to an ideal object that exists beyond its performances, instead he leaves a lot of things open to interpretation (pp.105-107). Precisely this observation can also be made when looking at Organ²/ASLSP.

Dokic tries to tell apart two levels in an open score. On the first level, a musical object is described in generic terms —this level is responsible for the semi-closed character, so to speak, of the open work. At this level one finds in Organ²/ASLSP the lines of musical phrases to be played. On another level, there are rather directions for action which are proposed and which concern the manner in which a specific performance of the work can be derived starting from the generic description. In the case of Organ²/ASLSP, this is however complicated by the paradox that Cage provided. Professor in theatre studies Erica Fischer-Lichte notes that Cage’s notion of performance is defined by a “very lack of intentionality and planning; openness for what could occur; the impossibility of control; coincidence, transience, and perpetual transformation without any outside intervention” (2008, p.124).

Yet, it could also be argued that Cage actually did the absolute opposite. In his work he creates a paradox about intentionality: he intentionally plans ‘openness’ in his compositions, which then on their turn seem to be non-intentional and seem to be having an open structure. His scores are thus intentionally non-intentional, forcing the people in Halberstadt to interpret the gaps in his instructions anew with each generation that passes by.

References:

• Borgdorff, A.H. (2012). The Conflict of the Faculties: Perspectives on Artistic Research in Academia. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

• Dokic, J. (1998). Music, Noise, Silence: Some Reflections on John Cage. Angelaki: Journal of theTheoretical Humanities. 3(2), pp. 103-112.

• Fischer-Lichte, E. (2008). The Transformative Power of Performance: A new aesthetics. London:Routledge.

• Van de Vall, R. (2015). The Devil and the Details. The Ontology of Contemporary Art in Conservation Theory and Practice. (not published yet).

Intentionally non-intentional: the open score of Organ²/ASLSP

• Another approach taken on scores and their openness can be investigated here.
   
• Connected to this article, it might also be interesting to read about the experimental approach of Nils Frahm.