No. 1 (1948, 172.7 cm x 264.2 cm) and 4’33” (1952) by abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock and musical composer John Cage respectively, are two very different compositions that challenged the idea of sound and silence in the processes in which they were created and also the role of authorship employed by each artist.
Jackson Pollock is most notable for creating his “drip-style” paintings and No. 1 marked the beginning of this. In order to create the masterpiece, he would lie out his huge roll of canvas on the floor and begin tossing, flicking, splashing, and dripping carefully mixed pigments of oil and enamel onto the canvas. Pollock discarded the traditional painting manner of passiveness and distance and instead employed a more active and personal role that encompassed perceptual randomness and inherent busyness. And while the resulting effect is one of chaos and disorientation, the process was extremely organized and deliberate. Pollock wanted to created something that exuded texture and depth and he accomplished this through his very unorthodox process. With a palette that contains mostly black, white, and lavender and a few drops of primary colours, we see in No. 1, a composition that is as beautiful as it is confusing. The noisy portion of the painting is mostly in the centre of the canvas, as if representing a space in which it is so overwhelming that it can be difficult for spectators to swallow and digest. When society gave wind to how No. 1 was created, he was met with a lot of backlash, with many artists and non-artists alike claiming that they too could create a “drip painting”. But these post-Pollock renditions did not entail the same sense of depth and noise as in No. 1 and this may be due to Pollock’s very detailed creation process — a constellation of effects orchestrated by its author.
Jackson Pollock, No. 1, 1948, 172.7 cm x 264.2 cm
Contrasted to that of Cage, 4’33” instead employs the power of silence in order to denote an overwhelming space. The musical composition, in which there is some controversy in its categorization, featured world-renowned pianist, David Tudor, sitting at a piano in front of an audience, not playing the instrument at all for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. It was organized into three parts or “movements” with instructions given to Tudor as to what to do for the length of the performance. The original score for the composition included not staffs found in traditional musical scores, but rather vertical lines on a page that indicated the particular length of time dedicated to each movement. The script instructed Tudor to sit at the piano, open the keyboard lid, and sit silently for thirty seconds, indicating movement one, then close the keyboard lid, reopen it, and sit silently again but for two minutes and thirty three seconds, indicating movement two, then close and reopen the lid and sit silently once more for one minute and forty seconds, indicating movement three, and finally close the lid and walk off stage. With 4’33”, Cage wanted to create an atmosphere devoid of sound, which forced its spectators to reflect on their own thoughts as well as the background sounds of life. He set up an environment that allowed for minute noises to become apparent, eliciting the focus on the unintended and what is not there, many calling it the “silent piece”. But he also touched on an aspect that is little more psychological than concentrating on individual thought, something that contradicts the purpose of the audience being there in the first place. The audience members arrived to 4’33” expecting to listen to David Tudor play the piano masterfully, but instead they ended up listening to the sounds of life. Cage explained how in the first movement, the audience was silent and you could hear the wind outside. During the second movement, there was some coughing and whispers, and the sound of rain lightly tapping on the window. And by the final movement, the audience became disappointed, complained loudly, and many stormed out of the room. Like No. 1, 4’33” was deemed quite controversial and recreated several times by different artists post the 1952 original.
John Cage, 4’33”, rendition of 1952 originalThe roles of authorship in No. 1 and 4’33” are revealed in very differing ways and the resulting effect of each also mimics this. In No. 1, as well as Cage signing his name in the bottom centre of the composition, we also see several smeared handprints throughout the piece, which are most obvious along the top edge. In addition to this, we observe what also appear to be bare footprints throughout. The unique identifiable aspects of handprints and footprints deem this work just as unique is it points to the personal relationship the artist has with his art. It separates the work not only from unoriginal works created by other artists but also from that of Pollocks own other works, and it is my opinion that the written autograph takes away from this. As well, the smearing of the prints and ambiguous recognition of the prints could be read as a possible critique on humankind, denoting societal obsession with conformity and sameness — automatism if you will, and instead replacing the emphasis on individuality, a popular theme in modern abstract expressionism.
Cage’s role of authorship can also be found in two places, one of which may not be as easily identified. The scoring of 4’33” in 1952 performed in Woodstock, New York, is the evidence of this. The inside page of the score indicates the work’s title, 4’33”, a note saying, “For any instrument or combination of instruments,” and his signature directly below. The physical signature is the first evidence of authorship, but the second occurs within the relationship between the composer, the audience, and the space (or lack thereof). Taking away the audience’s sense of hearing heightens the other four senses, allowing one to smell, tastes, see, and feel things that would otherwise be dulled by sound. Affiliated with the practices of Zen Buddhism, Cage made a point of not only emphasizing the autonomy of the individual but also uniting them in the sharing of an experience; an experience of reflecting on the absence of sound and the discomfort of silence.
Similarly, both Pollock and Cage made a critique in regards to how society understands sound and silence and ultimately how the two extremes make us feel. By forcing silence on the audience, Cage inevitably exposed noise and furthermore, challenged the notion of whether silence actually exists, bringing up the age old question, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it actually make a sound?” Conversely, Pollock used a blank canvas, the creative epitome of silence, and imposed onto it noise, his splatters and drips like musical rhythm passing throughout. Regardless of these two differing systems of sound versus silence, one thing holds true in both, the spectators were left feeling uneasy.
Works Cited
Hill, Jonathan. “Silence.” Immaterial Architecture. (Hoboken: Taylor & Francis, 2006). 181-182.
Ross, Alex. “Searching for Silence: John Cage’s art of noise.” Onward and Upward with the Arts. (The New Yorker, 2010). Accessed Oct 30, 2016. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/searching-for-silence
Schreyach, Michael. “Pre-objective Depth in Merleau-Ponty and Jackson Pollock.” Research in Phenomenology 43, no. 1 (2013): 49-70.
