Theories...Cardew as a Basis for Discussion on Ethical Options

I decided to review the article on Cornelius Cardew and his ethical contributions because of my interest in the role the artist plays in the betterment of society.

Something I found incredibly interesting in this article was the discussion of whether new music is even music at all and whether old music can continue to be art when it is simply a repetition of something done already. It seems to me that you can talk yourself in circles when discussing what is art and what is not. In this example though, I found it interesting that people who attempted to create a great new revolution, fell short. Their work went unnoticed. It was the people who continued to build on the tradition and that of the old that really attained success--in the popular market. Sure, they were generating great new content, but if your new content goes unnoticed, has it achieved anything other than existence? The article even calls into question its existence. If no one notices it, does it even exist? I think that it does exist; however, it exists like a rock. It sits there, dead weight, taking up space in the universe, but nonetheless serving some purpose.

I also found it interesting that there was extensive discussion on the influence of one's political inclination on their art. For example, the author explains that it is not fair to look purely at Cardew's music without regard to his political leanings. His Marxist affiliations greatly influenced his art. I think this is relevant to all forms of art. Art reflects life, so it only makes sense that this reflection be evident in an artists work.