Monorepo for Aesthetic.Computer
aesthetic.computer
chore: save workspace state
+10935
-27
+7
.gitignore
+7
.gitignore
···
60
60
# assets (ignore all - synced via CDN)
61
61
system/public/assets/*
62
62
!system/public/assets/.gitkeep
63
+
!system/public/assets/papers/
64
+
system/public/assets/papers/*
65
+
!system/public/assets/papers/readings/
66
+
system/public/assets/papers/readings/*
67
+
!system/public/assets/papers/readings/text/
68
+
system/public/assets/papers/readings/text/*
69
+
!system/public/assets/papers/readings/text/Gallope-Harren-Hicks-The-Scores-Project-2025.txt
63
70
64
71
# AestheticAnts runtime (logs, runs, test output - not part of the score)
65
72
ants/*.log
+70
reports/2026-04-02-getty-scores-project.md
+70
reports/2026-04-02-getty-scores-project.md
···
1
+
# Getty's *The Scores Project* for AC's Research Platter
2
+
3
+
*Digest written through `papers/SCORE.md`*
4
+
*2026-04-02*
5
+
6
+
## Sources
7
+
8
+
- Project site: https://www.getty.edu/publications/scores/
9
+
- Publication repository: https://github.com/thegetty/scores
10
+
- Open-access PDF: https://www.getty.edu/publications/scores/_assets/downloads/the-scores-project.pdf
11
+
12
+
## What This Is
13
+
14
+
*The Scores Project: Essays on Experimental Notation in Music, Art, Poetry, and Dance, 1950-1975* is a Getty Research Institute digital publication edited by Michael Gallope, Natilee Harren, and John Hicks, first published May 6, 2025.
15
+
16
+
Its subject is the postwar score as an intermedia technology: a page, object, or instruction set that can move between music, dance, poetry, and visual art. The book centers works by George Brecht, Sylvano Bussotti, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Allan Kaprow, Alison Knowles, Jackson Mac Low, Benjamin Patterson, Yvonne Rainer, Mieko Shiomi, David Tudor, and La Monte Young, and it includes a complete edition of *An Anthology of Chance Operations*.
17
+
18
+
The online edition is the real machine: more than 2,000 archival objects, zoomable images, audio/video, and scholarly commentaries bound together in Quire. The print/PDF book carries the introduction and commentaries, but the website is where the scores behave as an archive you can traverse.
19
+
20
+
## Why It Belongs on Our Platter
21
+
22
+
This is directly useful to AC because it treats a score as a living interface instead of a dead document. That is the same wager behind `SCORE.md`, Whistlegraph, KidLisp cards, and the `/papers` platter itself.
23
+
24
+
The project also gives us a concrete publishing model: a research archive first, then a book carved from that archive, then a repository that preserves the book as editable source.
25
+
26
+
## Score Mechanics Worth Stealing
27
+
28
+
### 1. Score as Executable Social Form
29
+
30
+
The Getty project frames experimental notation as a thing that can trigger performance, interpretation, and cross-disciplinary collaboration. That maps cleanly onto AC's piece model: a Whistlegraph score, a KidLisp card, or a tiny `.mjs` file is not only representation but a prompt for action.
31
+
32
+
### 2. Platter Before Paper
33
+
34
+
The publication behaves like our own platter pipeline:
35
+
36
+
```
37
+
archival objects + score facsimiles + media + commentary
38
+
-> thematic score pages
39
+
-> print/PDF book chapters
40
+
-> a source repo with revision history
41
+
```
42
+
43
+
That is the same pressure system described in `papers/SCORE.md`: gather raw material first, let a thread emerge, then compress it into a paper or card.
44
+
45
+
### 3. Object Pages as Research Cards
46
+
47
+
Each score entry pairs a primary object with context and commentary. That is close to AC's card format, where one sheet should carry enough source, argument, and invitation to travel. If we expand `/papers` beyond PDFs, this project is a strong precedent for "cards as scholarly object pages."
48
+
49
+
### 4. Repository as Publication Memory
50
+
51
+
Getty keeps the publication source in GitHub, with `main` representing the published edition and a `revisions` branch for prospective changes. That makes the book behave more like software without pretending every typo fix should ship instantly. AC papers could use the same idea when one paper needs a stable public edition but ongoing source-level correction.
52
+
53
+
### 5. Rights Boundaries Made Explicit
54
+
55
+
The Getty repo README and PDF both state a sharp split: text is CC BY-NC 4.0, but many images are excluded and live in a private `scores-images` submodule. That boundary matters for our platter. We can mirror/link the book text and code, but we should treat image assets as referenced context, not something to ingest wholesale unless rights are clear.
56
+
57
+
## Concrete AC Uses
58
+
59
+
- **Whistlegraph '26**: cite this project as a serious art-historical frame for score-as-performance and score-as-viral form.
60
+
- **Reading the Score**: compare Getty's archival score scholarship with AC's own `SCORE.md` as an operational score for agents.
61
+
- **Radical Computer Art**: use Fluxus/intermedia score histories here as one lineage for Goodiepalian instruction aesthetics.
62
+
- **Cards pipeline**: borrow the "object + commentary" pairing when designing richer research cards or platter pages.
63
+
- **Repo workflow**: consider a stable publication branch plus a corrections branch for `/papers` source once revisions become frequent.
64
+
65
+
## What Was Added to the Platter
66
+
67
+
- Local text extract: `system/public/assets/papers/readings/text/Gallope-Harren-Hicks-The-Scores-Project-2025.txt`
68
+
- Repo link: https://github.com/thegetty/scores
69
+
70
+
The text extract was generated from Getty's open-access PDF with `pdftotext -layout`. It keeps the book's textual layer available for search and reading while preserving the license warning that images are not covered by the CC BY-NC grant.
sosoft/24m-screenshot.png
sosoft/24m-screenshot.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+3
sosoft/24m.aux
+3
sosoft/24m.aux
+598
sosoft/24m.log
+598
sosoft/24m.log
···
1
+
This is XeTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-0.999995 (TeX Live 2023) (preloaded format=xelatex 2026.3.17) 2 APR 2026 11:20
2
+
entering extended mode
3
+
restricted \write18 enabled.
4
+
%&-line parsing enabled.
5
+
**24m.tex
6
+
(./24m.tex
7
+
LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1
8
+
L3 programming layer <2023-02-22>
9
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
10
+
Document Class: article 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX document class
11
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size12.clo
12
+
File: size12.clo 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX file (size option)
13
+
)
14
+
\c@part=\count181
15
+
\c@section=\count182
16
+
\c@subsection=\count183
17
+
\c@subsubsection=\count184
18
+
\c@paragraph=\count185
19
+
\c@subparagraph=\count186
20
+
\c@figure=\count187
21
+
\c@table=\count188
22
+
\abovecaptionskip=\skip48
23
+
\belowcaptionskip=\skip49
24
+
\bibindent=\dimen140
25
+
)
26
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/geometry/geometry.sty
27
+
Package: geometry 2020/01/02 v5.9 Page Geometry
28
+
29
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/keyval.sty
30
+
Package: keyval 2022/05/29 v1.15 key=value parser (DPC)
31
+
\KV@toks@=\toks16
32
+
)
33
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/ifvtex.sty
34
+
Package: ifvtex 2019/10/25 v1.7 ifvtex legacy package. Use iftex instead.
35
+
36
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/iftex.sty
37
+
Package: iftex 2022/02/03 v1.0f TeX engine tests
38
+
))
39
+
\Gm@cnth=\count189
40
+
\Gm@cntv=\count190
41
+
\c@Gm@tempcnt=\count191
42
+
\Gm@bindingoffset=\dimen141
43
+
\Gm@wd@mp=\dimen142
44
+
\Gm@odd@mp=\dimen143
45
+
\Gm@even@mp=\dimen144
46
+
\Gm@layoutwidth=\dimen145
47
+
\Gm@layoutheight=\dimen146
48
+
\Gm@layouthoffset=\dimen147
49
+
\Gm@layoutvoffset=\dimen148
50
+
\Gm@dimlist=\toks17
51
+
)
52
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.sty
53
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3packages/xparse/xparse.sty
54
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3kernel/expl3.sty
55
+
Package: expl3 2023-02-22 L3 programming layer (loader)
56
+
57
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3backend/l3backend-xetex.def
58
+
File: l3backend-xetex.def 2023-01-16 L3 backend support: XeTeX
59
+
\g__graphics_track_int=\count192
60
+
\l__pdf_internal_box=\box51
61
+
\g__pdf_backend_object_int=\count193
62
+
\g__pdf_backend_annotation_int=\count194
63
+
\g__pdf_backend_link_int=\count195
64
+
))
65
+
Package: xparse 2023-02-02 L3 Experimental document command parser
66
+
)
67
+
Package: fontspec 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX
68
+
69
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec-xetex.sty
70
+
Package: fontspec-xetex 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTe
71
+
X
72
+
\l__fontspec_script_int=\count196
73
+
\l__fontspec_language_int=\count197
74
+
\l__fontspec_strnum_int=\count198
75
+
\l__fontspec_tmp_int=\count199
76
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_int=\count266
77
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_int=\count267
78
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_int=\count268
79
+
\l__fontspec_em_int=\count269
80
+
\l__fontspec_emdef_int=\count270
81
+
\l__fontspec_strong_int=\count271
82
+
\l__fontspec_strongdef_int=\count272
83
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_dim=\dimen149
84
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_dim=\dimen150
85
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_dim=\dimen151
86
+
87
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/fontenc.sty
88
+
Package: fontenc 2021/04/29 v2.0v Standard LaTeX package
89
+
)
90
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.cfg)))
91
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/xcolor/xcolor.sty
92
+
Package: xcolor 2022/06/12 v2.14 LaTeX color extensions (UK)
93
+
94
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/color.cfg
95
+
File: color.cfg 2016/01/02 v1.6 sample color configuration
96
+
)
97
+
Package xcolor Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 227.
98
+
99
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-def/xetex.def
100
+
File: xetex.def 2022/09/22 v5.0n Graphics/color driver for xetex
101
+
)
102
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/mathcolor.ltx)
103
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `cmy' substituted by `cmy0' on input line 1353.
104
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `RGB' extended on input line 1369.
105
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HTML' substituted by `rgb' on input line 1371.
106
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Hsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1372.
107
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `tHsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1373.
108
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HSB' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1374.
109
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Gray' substituted by `gray' on input line 1375.
110
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `wave' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1376.
111
+
)
112
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz.sty
113
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgf.sty
114
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.sty
115
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-common.tex
116
+
\pgfutil@everybye=\toks18
117
+
\pgfutil@tempdima=\dimen152
118
+
\pgfutil@tempdimb=\dimen153
119
+
)
120
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-latex.def
121
+
\pgfutil@abb=\box52
122
+
)
123
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.code.tex
124
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/pgf.revision.tex)
125
+
Package: pgfrcs 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
126
+
))
127
+
Package: pgf 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
128
+
129
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.sty
130
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphicx.sty
131
+
Package: graphicx 2021/09/16 v1.2d Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
132
+
133
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphics.sty
134
+
Package: graphics 2022/03/10 v1.4e Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
135
+
136
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/trig.sty
137
+
Package: trig 2021/08/11 v1.11 sin cos tan (DPC)
138
+
)
139
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/graphics.cfg
140
+
File: graphics.cfg 2016/06/04 v1.11 sample graphics configuration
141
+
)
142
+
Package graphics Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 107.
143
+
)
144
+
\Gin@req@height=\dimen154
145
+
\Gin@req@width=\dimen155
146
+
)
147
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.sty
148
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.code.tex
149
+
Package: pgfsys 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
150
+
151
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex
152
+
\pgfkeys@pathtoks=\toks19
153
+
\pgfkeys@temptoks=\toks20
154
+
155
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeyslibraryfiltered
156
+
.code.tex
157
+
\pgfkeys@tmptoks=\toks21
158
+
))
159
+
\pgf@x=\dimen156
160
+
\pgf@y=\dimen157
161
+
\pgf@xa=\dimen158
162
+
\pgf@ya=\dimen159
163
+
\pgf@xb=\dimen160
164
+
\pgf@yb=\dimen161
165
+
\pgf@xc=\dimen162
166
+
\pgf@yc=\dimen163
167
+
\pgf@xd=\dimen164
168
+
\pgf@yd=\dimen165
169
+
\w@pgf@writea=\write3
170
+
\r@pgf@reada=\read2
171
+
\c@pgf@counta=\count273
172
+
\c@pgf@countb=\count274
173
+
\c@pgf@countc=\count275
174
+
\c@pgf@countd=\count276
175
+
\t@pgf@toka=\toks22
176
+
\t@pgf@tokb=\toks23
177
+
\t@pgf@tokc=\toks24
178
+
\pgf@sys@id@count=\count277
179
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgf.cfg
180
+
File: pgf.cfg 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
181
+
)
182
+
Driver file for pgf: pgfsys-xetex.def
183
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-xetex.def
184
+
File: pgfsys-xetex.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
185
+
186
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def
187
+
File: pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
188
+
189
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-common-pdf.de
190
+
f
191
+
File: pgfsys-common-pdf.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
192
+
)
193
+
\pgfsys@objnum=\count278
194
+
)))
195
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsyssoftpath.code.
196
+
tex
197
+
File: pgfsyssoftpath.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
198
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@smallbuffer@items=\count279
199
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@bigbuffer@items=\count280
200
+
)
201
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsysprotocol.code.
202
+
tex
203
+
File: pgfsysprotocol.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
204
+
))
205
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.code.tex
206
+
Package: pgfcore 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
207
+
208
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex
209
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathutil.code.tex)
210
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathparser.code.tex
211
+
\pgfmath@dimen=\dimen166
212
+
\pgfmath@count=\count281
213
+
\pgfmath@box=\box53
214
+
\pgfmath@toks=\toks25
215
+
\pgfmath@stack@operand=\toks26
216
+
\pgfmath@stack@operation=\toks27
217
+
)
218
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.code.tex)
219
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.basic.code
220
+
.tex)
221
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.trigonomet
222
+
ric.code.tex)
223
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.random.cod
224
+
e.tex)
225
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.comparison
226
+
.code.tex)
227
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.base.code.
228
+
tex)
229
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.round.code
230
+
.tex)
231
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.misc.code.
232
+
tex)
233
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.integerari
234
+
thmetics.code.tex)
235
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathcalc.code.tex)
236
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfloat.code.tex
237
+
\c@pgfmathroundto@lastzeros=\count282
238
+
))
239
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfint.code.tex)
240
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepoints.code.te
241
+
x
242
+
File: pgfcorepoints.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
243
+
\pgf@picminx=\dimen167
244
+
\pgf@picmaxx=\dimen168
245
+
\pgf@picminy=\dimen169
246
+
\pgf@picmaxy=\dimen170
247
+
\pgf@pathminx=\dimen171
248
+
\pgf@pathmaxx=\dimen172
249
+
\pgf@pathminy=\dimen173
250
+
\pgf@pathmaxy=\dimen174
251
+
\pgf@xx=\dimen175
252
+
\pgf@xy=\dimen176
253
+
\pgf@yx=\dimen177
254
+
\pgf@yy=\dimen178
255
+
\pgf@zx=\dimen179
256
+
\pgf@zy=\dimen180
257
+
)
258
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathconstruct.
259
+
code.tex
260
+
File: pgfcorepathconstruct.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
261
+
\pgf@path@lastx=\dimen181
262
+
\pgf@path@lasty=\dimen182
263
+
)
264
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathusage.code
265
+
.tex
266
+
File: pgfcorepathusage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
267
+
\pgf@shorten@end@additional=\dimen183
268
+
\pgf@shorten@start@additional=\dimen184
269
+
)
270
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorescopes.code.te
271
+
x
272
+
File: pgfcorescopes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
273
+
\pgfpic=\box54
274
+
\pgf@hbox=\box55
275
+
\pgf@layerbox@main=\box56
276
+
\pgf@picture@serial@count=\count283
277
+
)
278
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoregraphicstate.c
279
+
ode.tex
280
+
File: pgfcoregraphicstate.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
281
+
\pgflinewidth=\dimen185
282
+
)
283
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransformation
284
+
s.code.tex
285
+
File: pgfcoretransformations.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
286
+
\pgf@pt@x=\dimen186
287
+
\pgf@pt@y=\dimen187
288
+
\pgf@pt@temp=\dimen188
289
+
)
290
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorequick.code.tex
291
+
File: pgfcorequick.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
292
+
)
293
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreobjects.code.t
294
+
ex
295
+
File: pgfcoreobjects.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
296
+
)
297
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathprocessing
298
+
.code.tex
299
+
File: pgfcorepathprocessing.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
300
+
)
301
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorearrows.code.te
302
+
x
303
+
File: pgfcorearrows.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
304
+
\pgfarrowsep=\dimen189
305
+
)
306
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreshade.code.tex
307
+
File: pgfcoreshade.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
308
+
\pgf@max=\dimen190
309
+
\pgf@sys@shading@range@num=\count284
310
+
\pgf@shadingcount=\count285
311
+
)
312
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreimage.code.tex
313
+
File: pgfcoreimage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
314
+
)
315
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreexternal.code.
316
+
tex
317
+
File: pgfcoreexternal.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
318
+
\pgfexternal@startupbox=\box57
319
+
)
320
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorelayers.code.te
321
+
x
322
+
File: pgfcorelayers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
323
+
)
324
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransparency.c
325
+
ode.tex
326
+
File: pgfcoretransparency.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
327
+
)
328
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepatterns.code.
329
+
tex
330
+
File: pgfcorepatterns.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
331
+
)
332
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorerdf.code.tex
333
+
File: pgfcorerdf.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
334
+
)))
335
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex
336
+
File: pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
337
+
\pgfnodeparttextbox=\box58
338
+
) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleplot.code.tex
339
+
File: pgfmoduleplot.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
340
+
)
341
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-0-65
342
+
.sty
343
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-0-65 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
344
+
\pgf@nodesepstart=\dimen191
345
+
\pgf@nodesepend=\dimen192
346
+
)
347
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-1-18
348
+
.sty
349
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-1-18 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
350
+
)) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgffor.sty
351
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.sty
352
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex))
353
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/math/pgfmath.sty
354
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex))
355
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgffor.code.tex
356
+
Package: pgffor 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
357
+
\pgffor@iter=\dimen193
358
+
\pgffor@skip=\dimen194
359
+
\pgffor@stack=\toks28
360
+
\pgffor@toks=\toks29
361
+
))
362
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/tikz.code.tex
363
+
Package: tikz 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
364
+
365
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/libraries/pgflibraryplothandlers
366
+
.code.tex
367
+
File: pgflibraryplothandlers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
368
+
\pgf@plot@mark@count=\count286
369
+
\pgfplotmarksize=\dimen195
370
+
)
371
+
\tikz@lastx=\dimen196
372
+
\tikz@lasty=\dimen197
373
+
\tikz@lastxsaved=\dimen198
374
+
\tikz@lastysaved=\dimen199
375
+
\tikz@lastmovetox=\dimen256
376
+
\tikz@lastmovetoy=\dimen257
377
+
\tikzleveldistance=\dimen258
378
+
\tikzsiblingdistance=\dimen259
379
+
\tikz@figbox=\box59
380
+
\tikz@figbox@bg=\box60
381
+
\tikz@tempbox=\box61
382
+
\tikz@tempbox@bg=\box62
383
+
\tikztreelevel=\count287
384
+
\tikznumberofchildren=\count288
385
+
\tikznumberofcurrentchild=\count289
386
+
\tikz@fig@count=\count290
387
+
388
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmodulematrix.code.tex
389
+
File: pgfmodulematrix.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
390
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentrow=\count291
391
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentcolumn=\count292
392
+
\pgf@matrix@numberofcolumns=\count293
393
+
)
394
+
\tikz@expandcount=\count294
395
+
396
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/libraries/tik
397
+
zlibrarytopaths.code.tex
398
+
File: tikzlibrarytopaths.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
399
+
)))
400
+
401
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Regular(0)' created for font
402
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Regular' with options
403
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regu
404
+
lar,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold].
405
+
(fontspec)
406
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
407
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
408
+
(fontspec)
409
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
410
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Regular.ttf]/OT:script=latn;langu
411
+
age=dflt;"
412
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
413
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
414
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
415
+
=dflt;"
416
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
417
+
418
+
419
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Bold(0)' created for font
420
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Bold' with options
421
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold
422
+
,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,FakeBold=1.8].
423
+
(fontspec)
424
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
425
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
426
+
(fontspec)
427
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
428
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
429
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
430
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
431
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
432
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
433
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
434
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
435
+
436
+
(./24m.aux)
437
+
\openout1 = `24m.aux'.
438
+
439
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OML/cmm/m/it on input line 36.
440
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
441
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMS/cmsy/m/n on input line 36.
442
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
443
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OT1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
444
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
445
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for T1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
446
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
447
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TS1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
448
+
LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for TS1+cmr on input line 3
449
+
6.
450
+
451
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/ts1cmr.fd
452
+
File: ts1cmr.fd 2022/07/10 v2.5l Standard LaTeX font definitions
453
+
)
454
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
455
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
456
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
457
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMX/cmex/m/n on input line 36.
458
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
459
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
460
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
461
+
462
+
*geometry* driver: auto-detecting
463
+
*geometry* detected driver: xetex
464
+
*geometry* verbose mode - [ preamble ] result:
465
+
* driver: xetex
466
+
* paper: custom
467
+
* layout: <same size as paper>
468
+
* layoutoffset:(h,v)=(0.0pt,0.0pt)
469
+
* modes:
470
+
* h-part:(L,W,R)=(21.68121pt, 155.38007pt, 21.68121pt)
471
+
* v-part:(T,H,B)=(21.68121pt, 299.92006pt, 21.68121pt)
472
+
* \paperwidth=198.7425pt
473
+
* \paperheight=343.28249pt
474
+
* \textwidth=155.38007pt
475
+
* \textheight=299.92006pt
476
+
* \oddsidemargin=-50.58878pt
477
+
* \evensidemargin=-50.58878pt
478
+
* \topmargin=-87.58878pt
479
+
* \headheight=12.0pt
480
+
* \headsep=25.0pt
481
+
* \topskip=12.0pt
482
+
* \footskip=30.0pt
483
+
* \marginparwidth=44.0pt
484
+
* \marginparsep=10.0pt
485
+
* \columnsep=10.0pt
486
+
* \skip\footins=10.8pt plus 4.0pt minus 2.0pt
487
+
* \hoffset=0.0pt
488
+
* \voffset=0.0pt
489
+
* \mag=1000
490
+
* \@twocolumnfalse
491
+
* \@twosidefalse
492
+
* \@mparswitchfalse
493
+
* \@reversemarginfalse
494
+
* (1in=72.27pt=25.4mm, 1cm=28.453pt)
495
+
496
+
497
+
Package fontspec Info: Adjusting the maths setup (use [no-math] to avoid
498
+
(fontspec) this).
499
+
500
+
\symlegacymaths=\mathgroup4
501
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `legacymaths' in version `bold'
502
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> OT1/cmr/bx/n on input line 36.
503
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \acute on input line 36.
504
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \grave on input line 36.
505
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \ddot on input line 36.
506
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \tilde on input line 36.
507
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \bar on input line 36.
508
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \breve on input line 36.
509
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \check on input line 36.
510
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \hat on input line 36.
511
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \dot on input line 36.
512
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \mathring on input line 36.
513
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \colon on input line 36.
514
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Gamma on input line 36.
515
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Delta on input line 36.
516
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Theta on input line 36.
517
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Lambda on input line 36.
518
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Xi on input line 36.
519
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Pi on input line 36.
520
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Sigma on input line 36.
521
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Upsilon on input line 36.
522
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Phi on input line 36.
523
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Psi on input line 36.
524
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Omega on input line 36.
525
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \mathdollar on input line 36.
526
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring symbol font `operators' on input line 36.
527
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
528
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `normal' on input line 36.
529
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
530
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
531
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
532
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `bold' on input line 36.
533
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
534
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
535
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
536
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
537
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `normal'
538
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/it --> TU/lmr/m/it on input line 36.
539
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathbf' in version `normal'
540
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 36.
541
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `normal'
542
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/m/n --> TU/lmss/m/n on input line 36.
543
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `normal'
544
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/lmtt/m/n on input line 36.
545
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
546
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 36.
547
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `bold'
548
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/it --> TU/lmr/b/it on input line 36.
549
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `bold'
550
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/bx/n --> TU/lmss/b/n on input line 36.
551
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `bold'
552
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/lmtt/b/n on input line 36.
553
+
File: 24m-screenshot.png Graphic file (type bmp)
554
+
<24m-screenshot.png>
555
+
556
+
Overfull \hbox (5.78172pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 40--46
557
+
| []
558
+
[]
559
+
560
+
LaTeX Font Info: Calculating math sizes for size <9.5> on input line 52.
561
+
562
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OML/cmm/m/it' in size <9.5> not available
563
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
564
+
565
+
566
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OMS/cmsy/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
567
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
568
+
569
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
570
+
(Font) <9.5> on input line 52.
571
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
572
+
(Font) <6.64996> on input line 52.
573
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
574
+
(Font) <4.75> on input line 52.
575
+
576
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OT1/cmr/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
577
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
578
+
579
+
File: qr-24m.png Graphic file (type bmp)
580
+
<qr-24m.png>
581
+
[1
582
+
583
+
] (./24m.aux)
584
+
585
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Size substitutions with differences
586
+
(Font) up to 0.5pt have occurred.
587
+
588
+
)
589
+
Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
590
+
14518 strings out of 478682
591
+
341361 string characters out of 5849006
592
+
1845018 words of memory out of 6000000
593
+
34413 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
594
+
513327 words of font info for 51 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000
595
+
14 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
596
+
100i,7n,104p,414b,582s stack positions out of 10000i,1000n,20000p,200000b,200000s
597
+
598
+
Output written on 24m.pdf (1 page).
sosoft/24m.pdf
sosoft/24m.pdf
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
sosoft/24m.png
sosoft/24m.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+78
sosoft/24m.tex
+78
sosoft/24m.tex
···
1
+
% Generated KidLisp score card for $24m
2
+
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
3
+
\usepackage[
4
+
paperwidth=2.75in,
5
+
paperheight=4.75in,
6
+
top=0.3in,
7
+
bottom=0.3in,
8
+
left=0.3in,
9
+
right=0.3in,
10
+
]{geometry}
11
+
\usepackage{fontspec}
12
+
\usepackage{xcolor}
13
+
\usepackage{tikz}
14
+
\usepackage{graphicx}
15
+
16
+
\pagestyle{empty}
17
+
18
+
\newfontfamily\cardcodefont[
19
+
Path=fonts/,
20
+
Extension=.ttf,
21
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regular,
22
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
23
+
]{ComicRelief-Regular}
24
+
\newfontfamily\cardlabelfont[
25
+
Path=fonts/,
26
+
Extension=.ttf,
27
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
28
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
29
+
FakeBold=1.8,
30
+
]{ComicRelief-Bold}
31
+
32
+
\definecolor{ink}{RGB}{0,0,0}
33
+
\newcommand{\safetyinset}{0.22in}
34
+
\newcommand{\safewidth}{2.31in}
35
+
36
+
\begin{document}
37
+
38
+
\vspace*{-0.26in}
39
+
40
+
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}%
41
+
\begin{tikzpicture}
42
+
\clip (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
43
+
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
44
+
{\includegraphics[width=\safewidth, height=\safewidth]{24m-screenshot.png}};
45
+
\draw[black, line width=2.4pt] (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
46
+
\end{tikzpicture}\par
47
+
48
+
\vspace{0.03in}
49
+
50
+
\begingroup\offinterlineskip
51
+
\cardcodefont\bfseries\fontsize{9.5pt}{10.5pt}\selectfont\color{ink}
52
+
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}
53
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}black\\
54
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}ink zebra\\
55
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}point w/2 h/2\\
56
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}scroll (? -1 0 1) (? -1 0 1)\\
57
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}(1s (zoom 1.5)), spin 2\\
58
+
\end{tabular}
59
+
\endgroup
60
+
61
+
\vspace*{\fill}
62
+
63
+
\begin{tikzpicture}[remember picture, overlay]
64
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=0pt]
65
+
at ([xshift=-0.23in, yshift=0.75in]current page.south east)
66
+
{\colorbox{black}{%
67
+
\rule[-1pt]{0pt}{6.5pt}%
68
+
\kern-1pt{\cardlabelfont\bfseries\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\selectfont\color{white}\$24m}\kern-0.5pt%
69
+
}};
70
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=black]
71
+
at ([xshift=-\safetyinset, yshift=\safetyinset]current page.south east)
72
+
{\rule{0.48in}{0.48in}};
73
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=white]
74
+
at ([xshift=-0.24in, yshift=0.24in]current page.south east)
75
+
{\includegraphics[width=0.48in]{qr-24m.png}};
76
+
\end{tikzpicture}
77
+
78
+
\end{document}
+3
sosoft/berz.aux
+3
sosoft/berz.aux
+703
sosoft/berz.log
+703
sosoft/berz.log
···
1
+
This is XeTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-0.999995 (TeX Live 2023) (preloaded format=xelatex 2026.3.17) 2 APR 2026 11:09
2
+
entering extended mode
3
+
restricted \write18 enabled.
4
+
%&-line parsing enabled.
5
+
**card.tex
6
+
(./card.tex
7
+
LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1
8
+
L3 programming layer <2023-02-22>
9
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
10
+
Document Class: article 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX document class
11
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size12.clo
12
+
File: size12.clo 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX file (size option)
13
+
)
14
+
\c@part=\count181
15
+
\c@section=\count182
16
+
\c@subsection=\count183
17
+
\c@subsubsection=\count184
18
+
\c@paragraph=\count185
19
+
\c@subparagraph=\count186
20
+
\c@figure=\count187
21
+
\c@table=\count188
22
+
\abovecaptionskip=\skip48
23
+
\belowcaptionskip=\skip49
24
+
\bibindent=\dimen140
25
+
)
26
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/geometry/geometry.sty
27
+
Package: geometry 2020/01/02 v5.9 Page Geometry
28
+
29
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/keyval.sty
30
+
Package: keyval 2022/05/29 v1.15 key=value parser (DPC)
31
+
\KV@toks@=\toks16
32
+
)
33
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/ifvtex.sty
34
+
Package: ifvtex 2019/10/25 v1.7 ifvtex legacy package. Use iftex instead.
35
+
36
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/iftex.sty
37
+
Package: iftex 2022/02/03 v1.0f TeX engine tests
38
+
))
39
+
\Gm@cnth=\count189
40
+
\Gm@cntv=\count190
41
+
\c@Gm@tempcnt=\count191
42
+
\Gm@bindingoffset=\dimen141
43
+
\Gm@wd@mp=\dimen142
44
+
\Gm@odd@mp=\dimen143
45
+
\Gm@even@mp=\dimen144
46
+
\Gm@layoutwidth=\dimen145
47
+
\Gm@layoutheight=\dimen146
48
+
\Gm@layouthoffset=\dimen147
49
+
\Gm@layoutvoffset=\dimen148
50
+
\Gm@dimlist=\toks17
51
+
)
52
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.sty
53
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3packages/xparse/xparse.sty
54
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3kernel/expl3.sty
55
+
Package: expl3 2023-02-22 L3 programming layer (loader)
56
+
57
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3backend/l3backend-xetex.def
58
+
File: l3backend-xetex.def 2023-01-16 L3 backend support: XeTeX
59
+
\g__graphics_track_int=\count192
60
+
\l__pdf_internal_box=\box51
61
+
\g__pdf_backend_object_int=\count193
62
+
\g__pdf_backend_annotation_int=\count194
63
+
\g__pdf_backend_link_int=\count195
64
+
))
65
+
Package: xparse 2023-02-02 L3 Experimental document command parser
66
+
)
67
+
Package: fontspec 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX
68
+
69
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec-xetex.sty
70
+
Package: fontspec-xetex 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTe
71
+
X
72
+
\l__fontspec_script_int=\count196
73
+
\l__fontspec_language_int=\count197
74
+
\l__fontspec_strnum_int=\count198
75
+
\l__fontspec_tmp_int=\count199
76
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_int=\count266
77
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_int=\count267
78
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_int=\count268
79
+
\l__fontspec_em_int=\count269
80
+
\l__fontspec_emdef_int=\count270
81
+
\l__fontspec_strong_int=\count271
82
+
\l__fontspec_strongdef_int=\count272
83
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_dim=\dimen149
84
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_dim=\dimen150
85
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_dim=\dimen151
86
+
87
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/fontenc.sty
88
+
Package: fontenc 2021/04/29 v2.0v Standard LaTeX package
89
+
)
90
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.cfg)))
91
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/xcolor/xcolor.sty
92
+
Package: xcolor 2022/06/12 v2.14 LaTeX color extensions (UK)
93
+
94
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/color.cfg
95
+
File: color.cfg 2016/01/02 v1.6 sample color configuration
96
+
)
97
+
Package xcolor Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 227.
98
+
99
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-def/xetex.def
100
+
File: xetex.def 2022/09/22 v5.0n Graphics/color driver for xetex
101
+
)
102
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/mathcolor.ltx)
103
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `cmy' substituted by `cmy0' on input line 1353.
104
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `RGB' extended on input line 1369.
105
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HTML' substituted by `rgb' on input line 1371.
106
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Hsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1372.
107
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `tHsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1373.
108
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HSB' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1374.
109
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Gray' substituted by `gray' on input line 1375.
110
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `wave' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1376.
111
+
)
112
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz.sty
113
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgf.sty
114
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.sty
115
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-common.tex
116
+
\pgfutil@everybye=\toks18
117
+
\pgfutil@tempdima=\dimen152
118
+
\pgfutil@tempdimb=\dimen153
119
+
)
120
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-latex.def
121
+
\pgfutil@abb=\box52
122
+
)
123
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.code.tex
124
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/pgf.revision.tex)
125
+
Package: pgfrcs 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
126
+
))
127
+
Package: pgf 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
128
+
129
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.sty
130
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphicx.sty
131
+
Package: graphicx 2021/09/16 v1.2d Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
132
+
133
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphics.sty
134
+
Package: graphics 2022/03/10 v1.4e Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
135
+
136
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/trig.sty
137
+
Package: trig 2021/08/11 v1.11 sin cos tan (DPC)
138
+
)
139
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/graphics.cfg
140
+
File: graphics.cfg 2016/06/04 v1.11 sample graphics configuration
141
+
)
142
+
Package graphics Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 107.
143
+
)
144
+
\Gin@req@height=\dimen154
145
+
\Gin@req@width=\dimen155
146
+
)
147
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.sty
148
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.code.tex
149
+
Package: pgfsys 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
150
+
151
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex
152
+
\pgfkeys@pathtoks=\toks19
153
+
\pgfkeys@temptoks=\toks20
154
+
155
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeyslibraryfiltered
156
+
.code.tex
157
+
\pgfkeys@tmptoks=\toks21
158
+
))
159
+
\pgf@x=\dimen156
160
+
\pgf@y=\dimen157
161
+
\pgf@xa=\dimen158
162
+
\pgf@ya=\dimen159
163
+
\pgf@xb=\dimen160
164
+
\pgf@yb=\dimen161
165
+
\pgf@xc=\dimen162
166
+
\pgf@yc=\dimen163
167
+
\pgf@xd=\dimen164
168
+
\pgf@yd=\dimen165
169
+
\w@pgf@writea=\write3
170
+
\r@pgf@reada=\read2
171
+
\c@pgf@counta=\count273
172
+
\c@pgf@countb=\count274
173
+
\c@pgf@countc=\count275
174
+
\c@pgf@countd=\count276
175
+
\t@pgf@toka=\toks22
176
+
\t@pgf@tokb=\toks23
177
+
\t@pgf@tokc=\toks24
178
+
\pgf@sys@id@count=\count277
179
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgf.cfg
180
+
File: pgf.cfg 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
181
+
)
182
+
Driver file for pgf: pgfsys-xetex.def
183
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-xetex.def
184
+
File: pgfsys-xetex.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
185
+
186
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def
187
+
File: pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
188
+
189
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-common-pdf.de
190
+
f
191
+
File: pgfsys-common-pdf.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
192
+
)
193
+
\pgfsys@objnum=\count278
194
+
)))
195
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsyssoftpath.code.
196
+
tex
197
+
File: pgfsyssoftpath.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
198
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@smallbuffer@items=\count279
199
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@bigbuffer@items=\count280
200
+
)
201
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsysprotocol.code.
202
+
tex
203
+
File: pgfsysprotocol.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
204
+
))
205
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.code.tex
206
+
Package: pgfcore 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
207
+
208
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex
209
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathutil.code.tex)
210
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathparser.code.tex
211
+
\pgfmath@dimen=\dimen166
212
+
\pgfmath@count=\count281
213
+
\pgfmath@box=\box53
214
+
\pgfmath@toks=\toks25
215
+
\pgfmath@stack@operand=\toks26
216
+
\pgfmath@stack@operation=\toks27
217
+
)
218
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.code.tex)
219
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.basic.code
220
+
.tex)
221
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.trigonomet
222
+
ric.code.tex)
223
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.random.cod
224
+
e.tex)
225
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.comparison
226
+
.code.tex)
227
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.base.code.
228
+
tex)
229
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.round.code
230
+
.tex)
231
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.misc.code.
232
+
tex)
233
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.integerari
234
+
thmetics.code.tex)
235
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathcalc.code.tex)
236
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfloat.code.tex
237
+
\c@pgfmathroundto@lastzeros=\count282
238
+
))
239
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfint.code.tex)
240
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepoints.code.te
241
+
x
242
+
File: pgfcorepoints.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
243
+
\pgf@picminx=\dimen167
244
+
\pgf@picmaxx=\dimen168
245
+
\pgf@picminy=\dimen169
246
+
\pgf@picmaxy=\dimen170
247
+
\pgf@pathminx=\dimen171
248
+
\pgf@pathmaxx=\dimen172
249
+
\pgf@pathminy=\dimen173
250
+
\pgf@pathmaxy=\dimen174
251
+
\pgf@xx=\dimen175
252
+
\pgf@xy=\dimen176
253
+
\pgf@yx=\dimen177
254
+
\pgf@yy=\dimen178
255
+
\pgf@zx=\dimen179
256
+
\pgf@zy=\dimen180
257
+
)
258
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathconstruct.
259
+
code.tex
260
+
File: pgfcorepathconstruct.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
261
+
\pgf@path@lastx=\dimen181
262
+
\pgf@path@lasty=\dimen182
263
+
)
264
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathusage.code
265
+
.tex
266
+
File: pgfcorepathusage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
267
+
\pgf@shorten@end@additional=\dimen183
268
+
\pgf@shorten@start@additional=\dimen184
269
+
)
270
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorescopes.code.te
271
+
x
272
+
File: pgfcorescopes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
273
+
\pgfpic=\box54
274
+
\pgf@hbox=\box55
275
+
\pgf@layerbox@main=\box56
276
+
\pgf@picture@serial@count=\count283
277
+
)
278
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoregraphicstate.c
279
+
ode.tex
280
+
File: pgfcoregraphicstate.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
281
+
\pgflinewidth=\dimen185
282
+
)
283
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransformation
284
+
s.code.tex
285
+
File: pgfcoretransformations.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
286
+
\pgf@pt@x=\dimen186
287
+
\pgf@pt@y=\dimen187
288
+
\pgf@pt@temp=\dimen188
289
+
)
290
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorequick.code.tex
291
+
File: pgfcorequick.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
292
+
)
293
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreobjects.code.t
294
+
ex
295
+
File: pgfcoreobjects.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
296
+
)
297
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathprocessing
298
+
.code.tex
299
+
File: pgfcorepathprocessing.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
300
+
)
301
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorearrows.code.te
302
+
x
303
+
File: pgfcorearrows.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
304
+
\pgfarrowsep=\dimen189
305
+
)
306
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreshade.code.tex
307
+
File: pgfcoreshade.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
308
+
\pgf@max=\dimen190
309
+
\pgf@sys@shading@range@num=\count284
310
+
\pgf@shadingcount=\count285
311
+
)
312
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreimage.code.tex
313
+
File: pgfcoreimage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
314
+
)
315
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreexternal.code.
316
+
tex
317
+
File: pgfcoreexternal.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
318
+
\pgfexternal@startupbox=\box57
319
+
)
320
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorelayers.code.te
321
+
x
322
+
File: pgfcorelayers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
323
+
)
324
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransparency.c
325
+
ode.tex
326
+
File: pgfcoretransparency.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
327
+
)
328
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepatterns.code.
329
+
tex
330
+
File: pgfcorepatterns.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
331
+
)
332
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorerdf.code.tex
333
+
File: pgfcorerdf.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
334
+
)))
335
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex
336
+
File: pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
337
+
\pgfnodeparttextbox=\box58
338
+
) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleplot.code.tex
339
+
File: pgfmoduleplot.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
340
+
)
341
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-0-65
342
+
.sty
343
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-0-65 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
344
+
\pgf@nodesepstart=\dimen191
345
+
\pgf@nodesepend=\dimen192
346
+
)
347
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-1-18
348
+
.sty
349
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-1-18 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
350
+
)) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgffor.sty
351
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.sty
352
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex))
353
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/math/pgfmath.sty
354
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex))
355
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgffor.code.tex
356
+
Package: pgffor 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
357
+
\pgffor@iter=\dimen193
358
+
\pgffor@skip=\dimen194
359
+
\pgffor@stack=\toks28
360
+
\pgffor@toks=\toks29
361
+
))
362
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/tikz.code.tex
363
+
Package: tikz 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
364
+
365
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/libraries/pgflibraryplothandlers
366
+
.code.tex
367
+
File: pgflibraryplothandlers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
368
+
\pgf@plot@mark@count=\count286
369
+
\pgfplotmarksize=\dimen195
370
+
)
371
+
\tikz@lastx=\dimen196
372
+
\tikz@lasty=\dimen197
373
+
\tikz@lastxsaved=\dimen198
374
+
\tikz@lastysaved=\dimen199
375
+
\tikz@lastmovetox=\dimen256
376
+
\tikz@lastmovetoy=\dimen257
377
+
\tikzleveldistance=\dimen258
378
+
\tikzsiblingdistance=\dimen259
379
+
\tikz@figbox=\box59
380
+
\tikz@figbox@bg=\box60
381
+
\tikz@tempbox=\box61
382
+
\tikz@tempbox@bg=\box62
383
+
\tikztreelevel=\count287
384
+
\tikznumberofchildren=\count288
385
+
\tikznumberofcurrentchild=\count289
386
+
\tikz@fig@count=\count290
387
+
388
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmodulematrix.code.tex
389
+
File: pgfmodulematrix.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
390
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentrow=\count291
391
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentcolumn=\count292
392
+
\pgf@matrix@numberofcolumns=\count293
393
+
)
394
+
\tikz@expandcount=\count294
395
+
396
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/libraries/tik
397
+
zlibrarytopaths.code.tex
398
+
File: tikzlibrarytopaths.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
399
+
)))
400
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/listings/listings.sty
401
+
\lst@mode=\count295
402
+
\lst@gtempboxa=\box63
403
+
\lst@token=\toks30
404
+
\lst@length=\count296
405
+
\lst@currlwidth=\dimen260
406
+
\lst@column=\count297
407
+
\lst@pos=\count298
408
+
\lst@lostspace=\dimen261
409
+
\lst@width=\dimen262
410
+
\lst@newlines=\count299
411
+
\lst@lineno=\count300
412
+
\lst@maxwidth=\dimen263
413
+
414
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/listings/lstmisc.sty
415
+
File: lstmisc.sty 2023/02/27 1.9 (Carsten Heinz)
416
+
\c@lstnumber=\count301
417
+
\lst@skipnumbers=\count302
418
+
\lst@framebox=\box64
419
+
)
420
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/listings/listings.cfg
421
+
File: listings.cfg 2023/02/27 1.9 listings configuration
422
+
))
423
+
Package: listings 2023/02/27 1.9 (Carsten Heinz)
424
+
425
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ywft-processing-bold(0)' created for font
426
+
(fontspec) 'ywft-processing-bold' with options
427
+
(fontspec) [Path=../system/public/type/webfonts/,Extension=.ttf].
428
+
(fontspec)
429
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
430
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
431
+
(fontspec)
432
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
433
+
(fontspec) <->"[../system/public/type/webfonts/ywft-processing-bold
434
+
.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language=dflt;"
435
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
436
+
437
+
438
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ywft-processing-light(0)' created for font
439
+
(fontspec) 'ywft-processing-light' with options
440
+
(fontspec) [Path=../system/public/type/webfonts/,Extension=.ttf].
441
+
(fontspec)
442
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
443
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
444
+
(fontspec)
445
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
446
+
(fontspec) <->"[../system/public/type/webfonts/ywft-processing-ligh
447
+
t.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language=dflt;"
448
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
449
+
450
+
451
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Regular(0)' created for font
452
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Regular' with options
453
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regu
454
+
lar,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold].
455
+
(fontspec)
456
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
457
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
458
+
(fontspec)
459
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
460
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Regular.ttf]/OT:script=latn;langu
461
+
age=dflt;"
462
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
463
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
464
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
465
+
=dflt;"
466
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
467
+
468
+
469
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Bold(0)' created for font
470
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Bold' with options
471
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold
472
+
,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,FakeBold=1.8].
473
+
(fontspec)
474
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
475
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
476
+
(fontspec)
477
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
478
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
479
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
480
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
481
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
482
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
483
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
484
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
485
+
486
+
Unknown feature `style=Regular' in font `Nimbus Mono PS'.
487
+
Unknown feature `style=Regular/OT' in font `Nimbus Mono PS'.
488
+
Unknown feature `style=Regular/OT' in font `Nimbus Mono PS'.
489
+
Unknown feature `style=Bold/OT' in font `Nimbus Mono PS'.
490
+
Unknown feature `style=Italic/OT' in font `Nimbus Mono PS'.
491
+
Unknown feature `style=Bold Italic/OT' in font `Nimbus Mono PS'.
492
+
493
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'NimbusMonoPS(0)' created for font 'Nimbus
494
+
(fontspec) Mono PS' with options
495
+
(fontspec) [WordSpace={1,0,0},HyphenChar=None,PunctuationSpace=Word
496
+
Space,UprightFont={Nimbus
497
+
(fontspec) Mono PS:style=Regular},ItalicFont={Nimbus Mono
498
+
(fontspec) PS:style=Italic},BoldFont={Nimbus Mono
499
+
(fontspec) PS:style=Bold},BoldItalicFont={Nimbus Mono
500
+
(fontspec) PS:style=Bold Italic}].
501
+
(fontspec)
502
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
503
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
504
+
(fontspec)
505
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.: <->"Nimbus Mono
506
+
(fontspec) PS:style=Regular/OT:script=latn;language=dflt;"
507
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
508
+
(fontspec) and font adjustment code:
509
+
(fontspec) \fontdimen 2\font =1\fontdimen 2\font \fontdimen 3\font
510
+
(fontspec) =0\fontdimen 3\font \fontdimen 4\font =0\fontdimen
511
+
(fontspec) 4\font \fontdimen 7\font =0\fontdimen 2\font
512
+
(fontspec) \tex_hyphenchar:D \font =-1\scan_stop:
513
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.: <->"Nimbus Mono
514
+
(fontspec) PS:style=Bold/OT:script=latn;language=dflt;"
515
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
516
+
(fontspec) and font adjustment code:
517
+
(fontspec) \fontdimen 2\font =1\fontdimen 2\font \fontdimen 3\font
518
+
(fontspec) =0\fontdimen 3\font \fontdimen 4\font =0\fontdimen
519
+
(fontspec) 4\font \fontdimen 7\font =0\fontdimen 2\font
520
+
(fontspec) \tex_hyphenchar:D \font =-1\scan_stop:
521
+
(fontspec) - 'italic' (m/it) with NFSS spec.: <->"Nimbus Mono
522
+
(fontspec) PS:style=Italic/OT:script=latn;language=dflt;"
523
+
(fontspec) - 'italic small caps' (m/scit) with NFSS spec.:
524
+
(fontspec) and font adjustment code:
525
+
(fontspec) \fontdimen 2\font =1\fontdimen 2\font \fontdimen 3\font
526
+
(fontspec) =0\fontdimen 3\font \fontdimen 4\font =0\fontdimen
527
+
(fontspec) 4\font \fontdimen 7\font =0\fontdimen 2\font
528
+
(fontspec) \tex_hyphenchar:D \font =-1\scan_stop:
529
+
(fontspec) - 'bold italic' (b/it) with NFSS spec.: <->"Nimbus Mono
530
+
(fontspec) PS:style=Bold Italic/OT:script=latn;language=dflt;"
531
+
(fontspec) - 'bold italic small caps' (b/scit) with NFSS spec.:
532
+
(fontspec) and font adjustment code:
533
+
(fontspec) \fontdimen 2\font =1\fontdimen 2\font \fontdimen 3\font
534
+
(fontspec) =0\fontdimen 3\font \fontdimen 4\font =0\fontdimen
535
+
(fontspec) 4\font \fontdimen 7\font =0\fontdimen 2\font
536
+
(fontspec) \tex_hyphenchar:D \font =-1\scan_stop:
537
+
538
+
(./berz.aux)
539
+
\openout1 = `berz.aux'.
540
+
541
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OML/cmm/m/it on input line 71.
542
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
543
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMS/cmsy/m/n on input line 71.
544
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
545
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OT1/cmr/m/n on input line 71.
546
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
547
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for T1/cmr/m/n on input line 71.
548
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
549
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TS1/cmr/m/n on input line 71.
550
+
LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for TS1+cmr on input line 7
551
+
1.
552
+
553
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/ts1cmr.fd
554
+
File: ts1cmr.fd 2022/07/10 v2.5l Standard LaTeX font definitions
555
+
)
556
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
557
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TU/lmr/m/n on input line 71.
558
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
559
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMX/cmex/m/n on input line 71.
560
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
561
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 71.
562
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 71.
563
+
564
+
*geometry* driver: auto-detecting
565
+
*geometry* detected driver: xetex
566
+
*geometry* verbose mode - [ preamble ] result:
567
+
* driver: xetex
568
+
* paper: custom
569
+
* layout: <same size as paper>
570
+
* layoutoffset:(h,v)=(0.0pt,0.0pt)
571
+
* modes:
572
+
* h-part:(L,W,R)=(21.68121pt, 155.38007pt, 21.68121pt)
573
+
* v-part:(T,H,B)=(21.68121pt, 299.92006pt, 21.68121pt)
574
+
* \paperwidth=198.7425pt
575
+
* \paperheight=343.28249pt
576
+
* \textwidth=155.38007pt
577
+
* \textheight=299.92006pt
578
+
* \oddsidemargin=-50.58878pt
579
+
* \evensidemargin=-50.58878pt
580
+
* \topmargin=-87.58878pt
581
+
* \headheight=12.0pt
582
+
* \headsep=25.0pt
583
+
* \topskip=12.0pt
584
+
* \footskip=30.0pt
585
+
* \marginparwidth=44.0pt
586
+
* \marginparsep=10.0pt
587
+
* \columnsep=10.0pt
588
+
* \skip\footins=10.8pt plus 4.0pt minus 2.0pt
589
+
* \hoffset=0.0pt
590
+
* \voffset=0.0pt
591
+
* \mag=1000
592
+
* \@twocolumnfalse
593
+
* \@twosidefalse
594
+
* \@mparswitchfalse
595
+
* \@reversemarginfalse
596
+
* (1in=72.27pt=25.4mm, 1cm=28.453pt)
597
+
598
+
599
+
Package fontspec Info: Adjusting the maths setup (use [no-math] to avoid
600
+
(fontspec) this).
601
+
602
+
\symlegacymaths=\mathgroup4
603
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `legacymaths' in version `bold'
604
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> OT1/cmr/bx/n on input line 71.
605
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \acute on input line 71.
606
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \grave on input line 71.
607
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \ddot on input line 71.
608
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \tilde on input line 71.
609
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \bar on input line 71.
610
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \breve on input line 71.
611
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \check on input line 71.
612
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \hat on input line 71.
613
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \dot on input line 71.
614
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \mathring on input line 71.
615
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \colon on input line 71.
616
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Gamma on input line 71.
617
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Delta on input line 71.
618
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Theta on input line 71.
619
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Lambda on input line 71.
620
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Xi on input line 71.
621
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Pi on input line 71.
622
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Sigma on input line 71.
623
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Upsilon on input line 71.
624
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Phi on input line 71.
625
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Psi on input line 71.
626
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Omega on input line 71.
627
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \mathdollar on input line 71.
628
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring symbol font `operators' on input line 71.
629
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
630
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `normal' on input line 71.
631
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
632
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 71.
633
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
634
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `bold' on input line 71.
635
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
636
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 71.
637
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
638
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 71.
639
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `normal'
640
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/it --> TU/lmr/m/it on input line 71.
641
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathbf' in version `normal'
642
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 71.
643
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `normal'
644
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/m/n --> TU/lmss/m/n on input line 71.
645
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `normal'
646
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/NimbusMonoPS(0)/m/n on input line 7
647
+
1.
648
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
649
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 71.
650
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `bold'
651
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/it --> TU/lmr/b/it on input line 71.
652
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `bold'
653
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/bx/n --> TU/lmss/b/n on input line 71.
654
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `bold'
655
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/NimbusMonoPS(0)/b/n on input line 7
656
+
1.
657
+
\c@lstlisting=\count303
658
+
File: berz-screenshot.png Graphic file (type bmp)
659
+
<berz-screenshot.png>
660
+
661
+
Overfull \hbox (5.78172pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 76--82
662
+
| []
663
+
[]
664
+
665
+
LaTeX Font Info: Calculating math sizes for size <9.5> on input line 89.
666
+
667
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OML/cmm/m/it' in size <9.5> not available
668
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 89.
669
+
670
+
671
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OMS/cmsy/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
672
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 89.
673
+
674
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
675
+
(Font) <9.5> on input line 89.
676
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
677
+
(Font) <6.64996> on input line 89.
678
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
679
+
(Font) <4.75> on input line 89.
680
+
681
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OT1/cmr/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
682
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 89.
683
+
684
+
File: qr-berz.eps Graphic file (type eps)
685
+
<qr-berz.eps>
686
+
[1
687
+
688
+
] (./berz.aux)
689
+
690
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Size substitutions with differences
691
+
(Font) up to 0.5pt have occurred.
692
+
693
+
)
694
+
Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
695
+
15793 strings out of 478682
696
+
362071 string characters out of 5849006
697
+
1845018 words of memory out of 6000000
698
+
35655 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
699
+
513423 words of font info for 63 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000
700
+
14 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
701
+
100i,7n,104p,415b,616s stack positions out of 10000i,1000n,20000p,200000b,200000s
702
+
703
+
Output written on berz.pdf (1 page).
sosoft/berz.pdf
sosoft/berz.pdf
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
sosoft/berz.png
sosoft/berz.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+23
-16
sosoft/card.tex
+23
-16
sosoft/card.tex
···
32
32
Extension=.ttf
33
33
]
34
34
\newfontfamily\cardcodefont[
35
-
UprightFont={TeX Gyre Cursor:style=Regular},
36
-
ItalicFont={TeX Gyre Cursor:style=Italic},
37
-
BoldFont={TeX Gyre Cursor:style=Bold},
38
-
BoldItalicFont={TeX Gyre Cursor:style=Bold Italic},
39
-
]{TeX Gyre Cursor}
35
+
Path=fonts/,
36
+
Extension=.ttf,
37
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regular,
38
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
39
+
]{ComicRelief-Regular}
40
+
\newfontfamily\cardlabelfont[
41
+
Path=fonts/,
42
+
Extension=.ttf,
43
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
44
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
45
+
FakeBold=1.8,
46
+
]{ComicRelief-Bold}
40
47
\setmonofont[
41
48
UprightFont={Nimbus Mono PS:style=Regular},
42
49
ItalicFont={Nimbus Mono PS:style=Italic},
···
65
72
66
73
\vspace*{-0.26in}
67
74
68
-
% === $berz screenshot with rounded corners ===
75
+
% === $berz screenshot ===
69
76
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}%
70
77
\begin{tikzpicture}
71
-
\clip[rounded corners=5pt] (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
78
+
\clip (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
72
79
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
73
80
{\includegraphics[width=\safewidth, height=\safewidth]{berz-screenshot.png}};
74
-
\draw[black, line width=1.2pt, rounded corners=5pt] (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
81
+
\draw[black, line width=2.4pt] (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
75
82
\end{tikzpicture}\par
76
83
77
84
\vspace{0.03in}
78
85
79
86
% === Source code ===
80
87
\begingroup\offinterlineskip
81
-
\cardcodefont\bfseries\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\selectfont
88
+
\cardcodefont\bfseries\fontsize{9.5pt}{10.5pt}\selectfont\color{ink}
82
89
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}
83
-
\rule{0pt}{8.75pt}black\\
84
-
\rule{0pt}{8.75pt}ink (? white black)\\
85
-
\rule{0pt}{8.75pt}repeat 100 line\\
86
-
\rule{0pt}{8.75pt}spin 1\\
87
-
\rule{0pt}{8.75pt}(zoom 1.05)\\
88
-
\rule{0pt}{8.75pt}(blur 1)\\
90
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}black\\
91
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}ink (? white black)\\
92
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}repeat 100 line\\
93
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}spin 1\\
94
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}(zoom 1.05)\\
95
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}(blur 1)\\
89
96
\end{tabular}
90
97
\endgroup
91
98
···
97
104
at ([xshift=-0.23in, yshift=0.75in]current page.south east)
98
105
{\colorbox{black}{%
99
106
\rule[-1pt]{0pt}{6.5pt}%
100
-
\kern-1pt{\ttfamily\fontsize{7.5pt}{7.5pt}\selectfont\color{white}\$berz}\kern-0.5pt%
107
+
\kern-1pt{\cardlabelfont\bfseries\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\selectfont\color{white}\$berz}\kern-0.5pt%
101
108
}};
102
109
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=black]
103
110
at ([xshift=-\safetyinset, yshift=\safetyinset]current page.south east)
sosoft/duv-screenshot.png
sosoft/duv-screenshot.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+3
sosoft/duv.aux
+3
sosoft/duv.aux
+598
sosoft/duv.log
+598
sosoft/duv.log
···
1
+
This is XeTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-0.999995 (TeX Live 2023) (preloaded format=xelatex 2026.3.17) 2 APR 2026 11:21
2
+
entering extended mode
3
+
restricted \write18 enabled.
4
+
%&-line parsing enabled.
5
+
**duv.tex
6
+
(./duv.tex
7
+
LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1
8
+
L3 programming layer <2023-02-22>
9
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
10
+
Document Class: article 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX document class
11
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size12.clo
12
+
File: size12.clo 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX file (size option)
13
+
)
14
+
\c@part=\count181
15
+
\c@section=\count182
16
+
\c@subsection=\count183
17
+
\c@subsubsection=\count184
18
+
\c@paragraph=\count185
19
+
\c@subparagraph=\count186
20
+
\c@figure=\count187
21
+
\c@table=\count188
22
+
\abovecaptionskip=\skip48
23
+
\belowcaptionskip=\skip49
24
+
\bibindent=\dimen140
25
+
)
26
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/geometry/geometry.sty
27
+
Package: geometry 2020/01/02 v5.9 Page Geometry
28
+
29
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/keyval.sty
30
+
Package: keyval 2022/05/29 v1.15 key=value parser (DPC)
31
+
\KV@toks@=\toks16
32
+
)
33
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/ifvtex.sty
34
+
Package: ifvtex 2019/10/25 v1.7 ifvtex legacy package. Use iftex instead.
35
+
36
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/iftex.sty
37
+
Package: iftex 2022/02/03 v1.0f TeX engine tests
38
+
))
39
+
\Gm@cnth=\count189
40
+
\Gm@cntv=\count190
41
+
\c@Gm@tempcnt=\count191
42
+
\Gm@bindingoffset=\dimen141
43
+
\Gm@wd@mp=\dimen142
44
+
\Gm@odd@mp=\dimen143
45
+
\Gm@even@mp=\dimen144
46
+
\Gm@layoutwidth=\dimen145
47
+
\Gm@layoutheight=\dimen146
48
+
\Gm@layouthoffset=\dimen147
49
+
\Gm@layoutvoffset=\dimen148
50
+
\Gm@dimlist=\toks17
51
+
)
52
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.sty
53
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3packages/xparse/xparse.sty
54
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3kernel/expl3.sty
55
+
Package: expl3 2023-02-22 L3 programming layer (loader)
56
+
57
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3backend/l3backend-xetex.def
58
+
File: l3backend-xetex.def 2023-01-16 L3 backend support: XeTeX
59
+
\g__graphics_track_int=\count192
60
+
\l__pdf_internal_box=\box51
61
+
\g__pdf_backend_object_int=\count193
62
+
\g__pdf_backend_annotation_int=\count194
63
+
\g__pdf_backend_link_int=\count195
64
+
))
65
+
Package: xparse 2023-02-02 L3 Experimental document command parser
66
+
)
67
+
Package: fontspec 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX
68
+
69
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec-xetex.sty
70
+
Package: fontspec-xetex 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTe
71
+
X
72
+
\l__fontspec_script_int=\count196
73
+
\l__fontspec_language_int=\count197
74
+
\l__fontspec_strnum_int=\count198
75
+
\l__fontspec_tmp_int=\count199
76
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_int=\count266
77
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_int=\count267
78
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_int=\count268
79
+
\l__fontspec_em_int=\count269
80
+
\l__fontspec_emdef_int=\count270
81
+
\l__fontspec_strong_int=\count271
82
+
\l__fontspec_strongdef_int=\count272
83
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_dim=\dimen149
84
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_dim=\dimen150
85
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_dim=\dimen151
86
+
87
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/fontenc.sty
88
+
Package: fontenc 2021/04/29 v2.0v Standard LaTeX package
89
+
)
90
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.cfg)))
91
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/xcolor/xcolor.sty
92
+
Package: xcolor 2022/06/12 v2.14 LaTeX color extensions (UK)
93
+
94
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/color.cfg
95
+
File: color.cfg 2016/01/02 v1.6 sample color configuration
96
+
)
97
+
Package xcolor Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 227.
98
+
99
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-def/xetex.def
100
+
File: xetex.def 2022/09/22 v5.0n Graphics/color driver for xetex
101
+
)
102
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/mathcolor.ltx)
103
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `cmy' substituted by `cmy0' on input line 1353.
104
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `RGB' extended on input line 1369.
105
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HTML' substituted by `rgb' on input line 1371.
106
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Hsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1372.
107
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `tHsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1373.
108
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HSB' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1374.
109
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Gray' substituted by `gray' on input line 1375.
110
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `wave' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1376.
111
+
)
112
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz.sty
113
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgf.sty
114
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.sty
115
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-common.tex
116
+
\pgfutil@everybye=\toks18
117
+
\pgfutil@tempdima=\dimen152
118
+
\pgfutil@tempdimb=\dimen153
119
+
)
120
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-latex.def
121
+
\pgfutil@abb=\box52
122
+
)
123
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.code.tex
124
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/pgf.revision.tex)
125
+
Package: pgfrcs 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
126
+
))
127
+
Package: pgf 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
128
+
129
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.sty
130
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphicx.sty
131
+
Package: graphicx 2021/09/16 v1.2d Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
132
+
133
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphics.sty
134
+
Package: graphics 2022/03/10 v1.4e Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
135
+
136
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/trig.sty
137
+
Package: trig 2021/08/11 v1.11 sin cos tan (DPC)
138
+
)
139
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/graphics.cfg
140
+
File: graphics.cfg 2016/06/04 v1.11 sample graphics configuration
141
+
)
142
+
Package graphics Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 107.
143
+
)
144
+
\Gin@req@height=\dimen154
145
+
\Gin@req@width=\dimen155
146
+
)
147
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.sty
148
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.code.tex
149
+
Package: pgfsys 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
150
+
151
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex
152
+
\pgfkeys@pathtoks=\toks19
153
+
\pgfkeys@temptoks=\toks20
154
+
155
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeyslibraryfiltered
156
+
.code.tex
157
+
\pgfkeys@tmptoks=\toks21
158
+
))
159
+
\pgf@x=\dimen156
160
+
\pgf@y=\dimen157
161
+
\pgf@xa=\dimen158
162
+
\pgf@ya=\dimen159
163
+
\pgf@xb=\dimen160
164
+
\pgf@yb=\dimen161
165
+
\pgf@xc=\dimen162
166
+
\pgf@yc=\dimen163
167
+
\pgf@xd=\dimen164
168
+
\pgf@yd=\dimen165
169
+
\w@pgf@writea=\write3
170
+
\r@pgf@reada=\read2
171
+
\c@pgf@counta=\count273
172
+
\c@pgf@countb=\count274
173
+
\c@pgf@countc=\count275
174
+
\c@pgf@countd=\count276
175
+
\t@pgf@toka=\toks22
176
+
\t@pgf@tokb=\toks23
177
+
\t@pgf@tokc=\toks24
178
+
\pgf@sys@id@count=\count277
179
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgf.cfg
180
+
File: pgf.cfg 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
181
+
)
182
+
Driver file for pgf: pgfsys-xetex.def
183
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-xetex.def
184
+
File: pgfsys-xetex.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
185
+
186
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def
187
+
File: pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
188
+
189
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-common-pdf.de
190
+
f
191
+
File: pgfsys-common-pdf.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
192
+
)
193
+
\pgfsys@objnum=\count278
194
+
)))
195
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsyssoftpath.code.
196
+
tex
197
+
File: pgfsyssoftpath.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
198
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@smallbuffer@items=\count279
199
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@bigbuffer@items=\count280
200
+
)
201
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsysprotocol.code.
202
+
tex
203
+
File: pgfsysprotocol.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
204
+
))
205
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.code.tex
206
+
Package: pgfcore 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
207
+
208
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex
209
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathutil.code.tex)
210
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathparser.code.tex
211
+
\pgfmath@dimen=\dimen166
212
+
\pgfmath@count=\count281
213
+
\pgfmath@box=\box53
214
+
\pgfmath@toks=\toks25
215
+
\pgfmath@stack@operand=\toks26
216
+
\pgfmath@stack@operation=\toks27
217
+
)
218
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.code.tex)
219
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.basic.code
220
+
.tex)
221
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.trigonomet
222
+
ric.code.tex)
223
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.random.cod
224
+
e.tex)
225
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.comparison
226
+
.code.tex)
227
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.base.code.
228
+
tex)
229
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.round.code
230
+
.tex)
231
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.misc.code.
232
+
tex)
233
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.integerari
234
+
thmetics.code.tex)
235
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathcalc.code.tex)
236
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfloat.code.tex
237
+
\c@pgfmathroundto@lastzeros=\count282
238
+
))
239
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfint.code.tex)
240
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepoints.code.te
241
+
x
242
+
File: pgfcorepoints.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
243
+
\pgf@picminx=\dimen167
244
+
\pgf@picmaxx=\dimen168
245
+
\pgf@picminy=\dimen169
246
+
\pgf@picmaxy=\dimen170
247
+
\pgf@pathminx=\dimen171
248
+
\pgf@pathmaxx=\dimen172
249
+
\pgf@pathminy=\dimen173
250
+
\pgf@pathmaxy=\dimen174
251
+
\pgf@xx=\dimen175
252
+
\pgf@xy=\dimen176
253
+
\pgf@yx=\dimen177
254
+
\pgf@yy=\dimen178
255
+
\pgf@zx=\dimen179
256
+
\pgf@zy=\dimen180
257
+
)
258
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathconstruct.
259
+
code.tex
260
+
File: pgfcorepathconstruct.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
261
+
\pgf@path@lastx=\dimen181
262
+
\pgf@path@lasty=\dimen182
263
+
)
264
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathusage.code
265
+
.tex
266
+
File: pgfcorepathusage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
267
+
\pgf@shorten@end@additional=\dimen183
268
+
\pgf@shorten@start@additional=\dimen184
269
+
)
270
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorescopes.code.te
271
+
x
272
+
File: pgfcorescopes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
273
+
\pgfpic=\box54
274
+
\pgf@hbox=\box55
275
+
\pgf@layerbox@main=\box56
276
+
\pgf@picture@serial@count=\count283
277
+
)
278
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoregraphicstate.c
279
+
ode.tex
280
+
File: pgfcoregraphicstate.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
281
+
\pgflinewidth=\dimen185
282
+
)
283
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransformation
284
+
s.code.tex
285
+
File: pgfcoretransformations.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
286
+
\pgf@pt@x=\dimen186
287
+
\pgf@pt@y=\dimen187
288
+
\pgf@pt@temp=\dimen188
289
+
)
290
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorequick.code.tex
291
+
File: pgfcorequick.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
292
+
)
293
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreobjects.code.t
294
+
ex
295
+
File: pgfcoreobjects.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
296
+
)
297
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathprocessing
298
+
.code.tex
299
+
File: pgfcorepathprocessing.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
300
+
)
301
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorearrows.code.te
302
+
x
303
+
File: pgfcorearrows.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
304
+
\pgfarrowsep=\dimen189
305
+
)
306
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreshade.code.tex
307
+
File: pgfcoreshade.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
308
+
\pgf@max=\dimen190
309
+
\pgf@sys@shading@range@num=\count284
310
+
\pgf@shadingcount=\count285
311
+
)
312
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreimage.code.tex
313
+
File: pgfcoreimage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
314
+
)
315
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreexternal.code.
316
+
tex
317
+
File: pgfcoreexternal.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
318
+
\pgfexternal@startupbox=\box57
319
+
)
320
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorelayers.code.te
321
+
x
322
+
File: pgfcorelayers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
323
+
)
324
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransparency.c
325
+
ode.tex
326
+
File: pgfcoretransparency.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
327
+
)
328
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepatterns.code.
329
+
tex
330
+
File: pgfcorepatterns.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
331
+
)
332
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorerdf.code.tex
333
+
File: pgfcorerdf.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
334
+
)))
335
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex
336
+
File: pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
337
+
\pgfnodeparttextbox=\box58
338
+
) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleplot.code.tex
339
+
File: pgfmoduleplot.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
340
+
)
341
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-0-65
342
+
.sty
343
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-0-65 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
344
+
\pgf@nodesepstart=\dimen191
345
+
\pgf@nodesepend=\dimen192
346
+
)
347
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-1-18
348
+
.sty
349
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-1-18 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
350
+
)) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgffor.sty
351
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.sty
352
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex))
353
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/math/pgfmath.sty
354
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex))
355
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgffor.code.tex
356
+
Package: pgffor 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
357
+
\pgffor@iter=\dimen193
358
+
\pgffor@skip=\dimen194
359
+
\pgffor@stack=\toks28
360
+
\pgffor@toks=\toks29
361
+
))
362
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/tikz.code.tex
363
+
Package: tikz 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
364
+
365
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/libraries/pgflibraryplothandlers
366
+
.code.tex
367
+
File: pgflibraryplothandlers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
368
+
\pgf@plot@mark@count=\count286
369
+
\pgfplotmarksize=\dimen195
370
+
)
371
+
\tikz@lastx=\dimen196
372
+
\tikz@lasty=\dimen197
373
+
\tikz@lastxsaved=\dimen198
374
+
\tikz@lastysaved=\dimen199
375
+
\tikz@lastmovetox=\dimen256
376
+
\tikz@lastmovetoy=\dimen257
377
+
\tikzleveldistance=\dimen258
378
+
\tikzsiblingdistance=\dimen259
379
+
\tikz@figbox=\box59
380
+
\tikz@figbox@bg=\box60
381
+
\tikz@tempbox=\box61
382
+
\tikz@tempbox@bg=\box62
383
+
\tikztreelevel=\count287
384
+
\tikznumberofchildren=\count288
385
+
\tikznumberofcurrentchild=\count289
386
+
\tikz@fig@count=\count290
387
+
388
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmodulematrix.code.tex
389
+
File: pgfmodulematrix.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
390
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentrow=\count291
391
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentcolumn=\count292
392
+
\pgf@matrix@numberofcolumns=\count293
393
+
)
394
+
\tikz@expandcount=\count294
395
+
396
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/libraries/tik
397
+
zlibrarytopaths.code.tex
398
+
File: tikzlibrarytopaths.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
399
+
)))
400
+
401
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Regular(0)' created for font
402
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Regular' with options
403
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regu
404
+
lar,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold].
405
+
(fontspec)
406
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
407
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
408
+
(fontspec)
409
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
410
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Regular.ttf]/OT:script=latn;langu
411
+
age=dflt;"
412
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
413
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
414
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
415
+
=dflt;"
416
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
417
+
418
+
419
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Bold(0)' created for font
420
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Bold' with options
421
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold
422
+
,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,FakeBold=1.8].
423
+
(fontspec)
424
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
425
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
426
+
(fontspec)
427
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
428
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
429
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
430
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
431
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
432
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
433
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
434
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
435
+
436
+
(./duv.aux)
437
+
\openout1 = `duv.aux'.
438
+
439
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OML/cmm/m/it on input line 36.
440
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
441
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMS/cmsy/m/n on input line 36.
442
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
443
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OT1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
444
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
445
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for T1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
446
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
447
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TS1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
448
+
LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for TS1+cmr on input line 3
449
+
6.
450
+
451
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/ts1cmr.fd
452
+
File: ts1cmr.fd 2022/07/10 v2.5l Standard LaTeX font definitions
453
+
)
454
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
455
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
456
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
457
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMX/cmex/m/n on input line 36.
458
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
459
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
460
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
461
+
462
+
*geometry* driver: auto-detecting
463
+
*geometry* detected driver: xetex
464
+
*geometry* verbose mode - [ preamble ] result:
465
+
* driver: xetex
466
+
* paper: custom
467
+
* layout: <same size as paper>
468
+
* layoutoffset:(h,v)=(0.0pt,0.0pt)
469
+
* modes:
470
+
* h-part:(L,W,R)=(21.68121pt, 155.38007pt, 21.68121pt)
471
+
* v-part:(T,H,B)=(21.68121pt, 299.92006pt, 21.68121pt)
472
+
* \paperwidth=198.7425pt
473
+
* \paperheight=343.28249pt
474
+
* \textwidth=155.38007pt
475
+
* \textheight=299.92006pt
476
+
* \oddsidemargin=-50.58878pt
477
+
* \evensidemargin=-50.58878pt
478
+
* \topmargin=-87.58878pt
479
+
* \headheight=12.0pt
480
+
* \headsep=25.0pt
481
+
* \topskip=12.0pt
482
+
* \footskip=30.0pt
483
+
* \marginparwidth=44.0pt
484
+
* \marginparsep=10.0pt
485
+
* \columnsep=10.0pt
486
+
* \skip\footins=10.8pt plus 4.0pt minus 2.0pt
487
+
* \hoffset=0.0pt
488
+
* \voffset=0.0pt
489
+
* \mag=1000
490
+
* \@twocolumnfalse
491
+
* \@twosidefalse
492
+
* \@mparswitchfalse
493
+
* \@reversemarginfalse
494
+
* (1in=72.27pt=25.4mm, 1cm=28.453pt)
495
+
496
+
497
+
Package fontspec Info: Adjusting the maths setup (use [no-math] to avoid
498
+
(fontspec) this).
499
+
500
+
\symlegacymaths=\mathgroup4
501
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `legacymaths' in version `bold'
502
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> OT1/cmr/bx/n on input line 36.
503
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \acute on input line 36.
504
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \grave on input line 36.
505
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \ddot on input line 36.
506
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \tilde on input line 36.
507
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \bar on input line 36.
508
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \breve on input line 36.
509
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \check on input line 36.
510
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \hat on input line 36.
511
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \dot on input line 36.
512
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \mathring on input line 36.
513
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \colon on input line 36.
514
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Gamma on input line 36.
515
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Delta on input line 36.
516
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Theta on input line 36.
517
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Lambda on input line 36.
518
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Xi on input line 36.
519
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Pi on input line 36.
520
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Sigma on input line 36.
521
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Upsilon on input line 36.
522
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Phi on input line 36.
523
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Psi on input line 36.
524
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Omega on input line 36.
525
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \mathdollar on input line 36.
526
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring symbol font `operators' on input line 36.
527
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
528
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `normal' on input line 36.
529
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
530
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
531
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
532
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `bold' on input line 36.
533
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
534
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
535
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
536
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
537
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `normal'
538
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/it --> TU/lmr/m/it on input line 36.
539
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathbf' in version `normal'
540
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 36.
541
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `normal'
542
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/m/n --> TU/lmss/m/n on input line 36.
543
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `normal'
544
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/lmtt/m/n on input line 36.
545
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
546
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 36.
547
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `bold'
548
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/it --> TU/lmr/b/it on input line 36.
549
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `bold'
550
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/bx/n --> TU/lmss/b/n on input line 36.
551
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `bold'
552
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/lmtt/b/n on input line 36.
553
+
File: duv-screenshot.png Graphic file (type bmp)
554
+
<duv-screenshot.png>
555
+
556
+
Overfull \hbox (5.78172pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 40--46
557
+
| []
558
+
[]
559
+
560
+
LaTeX Font Info: Calculating math sizes for size <9.5> on input line 52.
561
+
562
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OML/cmm/m/it' in size <9.5> not available
563
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
564
+
565
+
566
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OMS/cmsy/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
567
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
568
+
569
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
570
+
(Font) <9.5> on input line 52.
571
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
572
+
(Font) <6.64996> on input line 52.
573
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
574
+
(Font) <4.75> on input line 52.
575
+
576
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OT1/cmr/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
577
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
578
+
579
+
File: qr-duv.png Graphic file (type bmp)
580
+
<qr-duv.png>
581
+
[1
582
+
583
+
] (./duv.aux)
584
+
585
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Size substitutions with differences
586
+
(Font) up to 0.5pt have occurred.
587
+
588
+
)
589
+
Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
590
+
14518 strings out of 478682
591
+
341361 string characters out of 5849006
592
+
1845018 words of memory out of 6000000
593
+
34413 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
594
+
513327 words of font info for 51 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000
595
+
14 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
596
+
100i,7n,104p,414b,582s stack positions out of 10000i,1000n,20000p,200000b,200000s
597
+
598
+
Output written on duv.pdf (1 page).
sosoft/duv.pdf
sosoft/duv.pdf
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
sosoft/duv.png
sosoft/duv.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+78
sosoft/duv.tex
+78
sosoft/duv.tex
···
1
+
% Generated KidLisp score card for $duv
2
+
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
3
+
\usepackage[
4
+
paperwidth=2.75in,
5
+
paperheight=4.75in,
6
+
top=0.3in,
7
+
bottom=0.3in,
8
+
left=0.3in,
9
+
right=0.3in,
10
+
]{geometry}
11
+
\usepackage{fontspec}
12
+
\usepackage{xcolor}
13
+
\usepackage{tikz}
14
+
\usepackage{graphicx}
15
+
16
+
\pagestyle{empty}
17
+
18
+
\newfontfamily\cardcodefont[
19
+
Path=fonts/,
20
+
Extension=.ttf,
21
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regular,
22
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
23
+
]{ComicRelief-Regular}
24
+
\newfontfamily\cardlabelfont[
25
+
Path=fonts/,
26
+
Extension=.ttf,
27
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
28
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
29
+
FakeBold=1.8,
30
+
]{ComicRelief-Bold}
31
+
32
+
\definecolor{ink}{RGB}{0,0,0}
33
+
\newcommand{\safetyinset}{0.22in}
34
+
\newcommand{\safewidth}{2.31in}
35
+
36
+
\begin{document}
37
+
38
+
\vspace*{-0.26in}
39
+
40
+
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}%
41
+
\begin{tikzpicture}
42
+
\clip (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
43
+
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
44
+
{\includegraphics[width=\safewidth, height=\safewidth]{duv-screenshot.png}};
45
+
\draw[black, line width=2.4pt] (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
46
+
\end{tikzpicture}\par
47
+
48
+
\vspace{0.03in}
49
+
50
+
\begingroup\offinterlineskip
51
+
\cardcodefont\bfseries\fontsize{9.5pt}{10.5pt}\selectfont\color{ink}
52
+
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}
53
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}black\\
54
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}ink zebra\\
55
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}point w/2 h/2\\
56
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}scroll (? -1 0 1) (? -1 0 1)\\
57
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}(2s (zoom 1.5))\\
58
+
\end{tabular}
59
+
\endgroup
60
+
61
+
\vspace*{\fill}
62
+
63
+
\begin{tikzpicture}[remember picture, overlay]
64
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=0pt]
65
+
at ([xshift=-0.23in, yshift=0.75in]current page.south east)
66
+
{\colorbox{black}{%
67
+
\rule[-1pt]{0pt}{6.5pt}%
68
+
\kern-1pt{\cardlabelfont\bfseries\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\selectfont\color{white}\$duv}\kern-0.5pt%
69
+
}};
70
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=black]
71
+
at ([xshift=-\safetyinset, yshift=\safetyinset]current page.south east)
72
+
{\rule{0.48in}{0.48in}};
73
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=white]
74
+
at ([xshift=-0.24in, yshift=0.24in]current page.south east)
75
+
{\includegraphics[width=0.48in]{qr-duv.png}};
76
+
\end{tikzpicture}
77
+
78
+
\end{document}
sosoft/fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf
sosoft/fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+93
sosoft/fonts/ComicRelief-OFL.txt
+93
sosoft/fonts/ComicRelief-OFL.txt
···
1
+
Copyright 2013 The Comic Relief Project Authors (https://github.com/loudifier/Comic-Relief)
2
+
3
+
This Font Software is licensed under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1.
4
+
This license is copied below, and is also available with a FAQ at:
5
+
https://openfontlicense.org
6
+
7
+
8
+
-----------------------------------------------------------
9
+
SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1 - 26 February 2007
10
+
-----------------------------------------------------------
11
+
12
+
PREAMBLE
13
+
The goals of the Open Font License (OFL) are to stimulate worldwide
14
+
development of collaborative font projects, to support the font creation
15
+
efforts of academic and linguistic communities, and to provide a free and
16
+
open framework in which fonts may be shared and improved in partnership
17
+
with others.
18
+
19
+
The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and
20
+
redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The
21
+
fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded,
22
+
redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that any reserved
23
+
names are not used by derivative works. The fonts and derivatives,
24
+
however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The
25
+
requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply
26
+
to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives.
27
+
28
+
DEFINITIONS
29
+
"Font Software" refers to the set of files released by the Copyright
30
+
Holder(s) under this license and clearly marked as such. This may
31
+
include source files, build scripts and documentation.
32
+
33
+
"Reserved Font Name" refers to any names specified as such after the
34
+
copyright statement(s).
35
+
36
+
"Original Version" refers to the collection of Font Software components as
37
+
distributed by the Copyright Holder(s).
38
+
39
+
"Modified Version" refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting,
40
+
or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the
41
+
Original Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a
42
+
new environment.
43
+
44
+
"Author" refers to any designer, engineer, programmer, technical
45
+
writer or other person who contributed to the Font Software.
46
+
47
+
PERMISSION & CONDITIONS
48
+
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
49
+
a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy, merge, embed, modify,
50
+
redistribute, and sell modified and unmodified copies of the Font
51
+
Software, subject to the following conditions:
52
+
53
+
1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
54
+
in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
55
+
56
+
2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled,
57
+
redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy
58
+
contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be
59
+
included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or
60
+
in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or
61
+
binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user.
62
+
63
+
3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved Font
64
+
Name(s) unless explicit written permission is granted by the corresponding
65
+
Copyright Holder. This restriction only applies to the primary font name as
66
+
presented to the users.
67
+
68
+
4) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or the Author(s) of the Font
69
+
Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any
70
+
Modified Version, except to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the
71
+
Copyright Holder(s) and the Author(s) or with their explicit written
72
+
permission.
73
+
74
+
5) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole,
75
+
must be distributed entirely under this license, and must not be
76
+
distributed under any other license. The requirement for fonts to
77
+
remain under this license does not apply to any document created
78
+
using the Font Software.
79
+
80
+
TERMINATION
81
+
This license becomes null and void if any of the above conditions are
82
+
not met.
83
+
84
+
DISCLAIMER
85
+
THE FONT SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
86
+
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF
87
+
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT
88
+
OF COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR OTHER RIGHT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
89
+
COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
90
+
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
91
+
DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
92
+
FROM, OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE FONT SOFTWARE OR FROM
93
+
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE FONT SOFTWARE.
sosoft/fonts/ComicRelief-Regular.ttf
sosoft/fonts/ComicRelief-Regular.ttf
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+281
sosoft/generate-kidlisp-cards.mjs
+281
sosoft/generate-kidlisp-cards.mjs
···
1
+
#!/usr/bin/env node
2
+
3
+
import fs from "node:fs/promises";
4
+
import path from "node:path";
5
+
import { execFileSync } from "node:child_process";
6
+
import { fileURLToPath } from "node:url";
7
+
import puppeteer from "puppeteer";
8
+
import QRCode from "qrcode";
9
+
10
+
const __dirname = path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url));
11
+
const codes = process.argv.slice(2);
12
+
const cardCodes = codes.length ? codes : ["kl1", "24m", "duv"];
13
+
const sourceWrapColumn = 34;
14
+
const screenshotSize = 1000;
15
+
const ovenFrameDelayMs = 2200;
16
+
17
+
const browser = await puppeteer.launch({
18
+
headless: true,
19
+
executablePath: process.env.PUPPETEER_EXECUTABLE_PATH || "/usr/sbin/chromium-browser",
20
+
args: ["--no-sandbox", "--disable-setuid-sandbox"],
21
+
});
22
+
23
+
for (const code of cardCodes) {
24
+
const cardData = await fetchCardData(code);
25
+
await captureScreenshot(browser, cardData);
26
+
await writeQrCode(cardData);
27
+
await writeCardTex(cardData);
28
+
renderPdf(cardData.code);
29
+
console.log(`wrote ${cardData.code}.pdf`);
30
+
}
31
+
32
+
await browser.close();
33
+
34
+
async function fetchCardData(code) {
35
+
const response = await fetch(
36
+
`https://aesthetic.computer/api/store-kidlisp?code=${encodeURIComponent(code)}`,
37
+
);
38
+
39
+
if (!response.ok) {
40
+
throw new Error(`Failed to fetch $${code}: ${response.status} ${response.statusText}`);
41
+
}
42
+
43
+
const payload = await response.json();
44
+
if (!payload.source || !payload.ipfsMedia?.thumbnailUri) {
45
+
throw new Error(`Missing source or thumbnail metadata for $${code}`);
46
+
}
47
+
48
+
return {
49
+
code,
50
+
source: payload.source,
51
+
};
52
+
}
53
+
54
+
async function captureScreenshot(browser, { code }) {
55
+
const screenshotPath = path.join(__dirname, `${code}-screenshot.png`);
56
+
const ovenUrl = new URL(
57
+
`/grab/webp/${screenshotSize}/${screenshotSize}/${encodeURIComponent(`$${code}`)}`,
58
+
"https://oven.aesthetic.computer",
59
+
);
60
+
ovenUrl.searchParams.set("duration", "2200");
61
+
ovenUrl.searchParams.set("fps", "8");
62
+
ovenUrl.searchParams.set("quality", "90");
63
+
ovenUrl.searchParams.set("density", "1");
64
+
ovenUrl.searchParams.set("nowait", "true");
65
+
ovenUrl.searchParams.set("source", "sosoft-card");
66
+
67
+
const page = await browser.newPage();
68
+
page.setDefaultTimeout(120000);
69
+
page.setDefaultNavigationTimeout(120000);
70
+
await page.setViewport({
71
+
width: screenshotSize,
72
+
height: screenshotSize,
73
+
deviceScaleFactor: 1,
74
+
});
75
+
await page.setContent(
76
+
`<!doctype html>
77
+
<html>
78
+
<body style="margin:0;background:#fff;width:${screenshotSize}px;height:${screenshotSize}px;overflow:hidden">
79
+
<img
80
+
id="piece"
81
+
src="${ovenUrl.toString()}"
82
+
width="${screenshotSize}"
83
+
height="${screenshotSize}"
84
+
style="display:block;width:${screenshotSize}px;height:${screenshotSize}px"
85
+
/>
86
+
</body>
87
+
</html>`,
88
+
{ waitUntil: "domcontentloaded", timeout: 120000 },
89
+
);
90
+
await page.waitForFunction(() => {
91
+
const piece = document.getElementById("piece");
92
+
return piece && piece.complete && piece.naturalWidth > 0;
93
+
}, { timeout: 120000 });
94
+
await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, ovenFrameDelayMs));
95
+
await page.screenshot({
96
+
path: screenshotPath,
97
+
clip: { x: 0, y: 0, width: screenshotSize, height: screenshotSize },
98
+
});
99
+
await page.close();
100
+
}
101
+
102
+
async function writeQrCode({ code }) {
103
+
await QRCode.toFile(
104
+
path.join(__dirname, `qr-${code}.png`),
105
+
`https://aesthetic.computer/${code}`,
106
+
{
107
+
margin: 0,
108
+
width: 512,
109
+
color: {
110
+
dark: "#000000",
111
+
light: "#ffffff",
112
+
},
113
+
},
114
+
);
115
+
}
116
+
117
+
async function writeCardTex({ code, source }) {
118
+
const sourceRows = wrapSource(source)
119
+
.map((line) => `\\rule{0pt}{11pt}${escapeTex(line)}\\\\`)
120
+
.join("\n");
121
+
122
+
const tex = `% Generated KidLisp score card for $${code}
123
+
\\documentclass[12pt]{article}
124
+
\\usepackage[
125
+
paperwidth=2.75in,
126
+
paperheight=4.75in,
127
+
top=0.3in,
128
+
bottom=0.3in,
129
+
left=0.3in,
130
+
right=0.3in,
131
+
]{geometry}
132
+
\\usepackage{fontspec}
133
+
\\usepackage{xcolor}
134
+
\\usepackage{tikz}
135
+
\\usepackage{graphicx}
136
+
137
+
\\pagestyle{empty}
138
+
139
+
\\newfontfamily\\cardcodefont[
140
+
Path=fonts/,
141
+
Extension=.ttf,
142
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regular,
143
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
144
+
]{ComicRelief-Regular}
145
+
\\newfontfamily\\cardlabelfont[
146
+
Path=fonts/,
147
+
Extension=.ttf,
148
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
149
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
150
+
FakeBold=1.8,
151
+
]{ComicRelief-Bold}
152
+
153
+
\\definecolor{ink}{RGB}{0,0,0}
154
+
\\newcommand{\\safetyinset}{0.22in}
155
+
\\newcommand{\\safewidth}{2.31in}
156
+
157
+
\\begin{document}
158
+
159
+
\\vspace*{-0.26in}
160
+
161
+
\\noindent\\hspace*{-0.08in}%
162
+
\\begin{tikzpicture}
163
+
\\clip (0,0) rectangle (\\safewidth,\\safewidth);
164
+
\\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
165
+
{\\includegraphics[width=\\safewidth, height=\\safewidth]{${escapeTex(code)}-screenshot.png}};
166
+
\\draw[black, line width=2.4pt] (0,0) rectangle (\\safewidth,\\safewidth);
167
+
\\end{tikzpicture}\\par
168
+
169
+
\\vspace{0.03in}
170
+
171
+
\\begingroup\\offinterlineskip
172
+
\\cardcodefont\\bfseries\\fontsize{9.5pt}{10.5pt}\\selectfont\\color{ink}
173
+
\\noindent\\hspace*{-0.08in}\\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}
174
+
${sourceRows}
175
+
\\end{tabular}
176
+
\\endgroup
177
+
178
+
\\vspace*{\\fill}
179
+
180
+
\\begin{tikzpicture}[remember picture, overlay]
181
+
\\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=0pt]
182
+
at ([xshift=-0.23in, yshift=0.75in]current page.south east)
183
+
{\\colorbox{black}{%
184
+
\\rule[-1pt]{0pt}{6.5pt}%
185
+
\\kern-1pt{\\cardlabelfont\\bfseries\\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\\selectfont\\color{white}\\$${escapeTex(code)}}\\kern-0.5pt%
186
+
}};
187
+
\\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=black]
188
+
at ([xshift=-\\safetyinset, yshift=\\safetyinset]current page.south east)
189
+
{\\rule{0.48in}{0.48in}};
190
+
\\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=white]
191
+
at ([xshift=-0.24in, yshift=0.24in]current page.south east)
192
+
{\\includegraphics[width=0.48in]{qr-${escapeTex(code)}.png}};
193
+
\\end{tikzpicture}
194
+
195
+
\\end{document}
196
+
`;
197
+
198
+
await fs.writeFile(path.join(__dirname, `${code}.tex`), tex);
199
+
}
200
+
201
+
function renderPdf(code) {
202
+
const args = ["-interaction=nonstopmode", "-halt-on-error", `${code}.tex`];
203
+
execFileSync("xelatex", args, { cwd: __dirname, stdio: "ignore" });
204
+
execFileSync("xelatex", args, { cwd: __dirname, stdio: "ignore" });
205
+
execFileSync(
206
+
"pdftoppm",
207
+
["-f", "1", "-singlefile", "-r", "200", "-png", `${code}.pdf`, code],
208
+
{ cwd: __dirname, stdio: "ignore" },
209
+
);
210
+
}
211
+
212
+
function wrapSource(source) {
213
+
return source
214
+
.split(/\n+/)
215
+
.flatMap((line) => wrapLine(line.trim()))
216
+
.filter(Boolean);
217
+
}
218
+
219
+
function wrapLine(line) {
220
+
if (line.length <= sourceWrapColumn) {
221
+
return [line];
222
+
}
223
+
224
+
const commaParts = line.split(/\s*,\s*/).filter(Boolean);
225
+
if (commaParts.length > 1) {
226
+
return commaParts.flatMap((part) => wrapWords(part));
227
+
}
228
+
229
+
return wrapWords(line);
230
+
}
231
+
232
+
function wrapWords(line) {
233
+
if (line.length <= sourceWrapColumn) {
234
+
return [line];
235
+
}
236
+
237
+
const wrapped = [];
238
+
let current = "";
239
+
for (const word of line.split(/\s+/)) {
240
+
const candidate = current ? `${current} ${word}` : word;
241
+
if (candidate.length > sourceWrapColumn && current) {
242
+
wrapped.push(current);
243
+
current = word;
244
+
} else {
245
+
current = candidate;
246
+
}
247
+
}
248
+
if (current) {
249
+
wrapped.push(current);
250
+
}
251
+
return wrapped;
252
+
}
253
+
254
+
function escapeTex(value) {
255
+
return value.replace(/[\\{}#$%&_~^]/g, (char) => {
256
+
switch (char) {
257
+
case "\\":
258
+
return "\\textbackslash{}";
259
+
case "{":
260
+
return "\\{";
261
+
case "}":
262
+
return "\\}";
263
+
case "#":
264
+
return "\\#";
265
+
case "$":
266
+
return "\\$";
267
+
case "%":
268
+
return "\\%";
269
+
case "&":
270
+
return "\\&";
271
+
case "_":
272
+
return "\\_";
273
+
case "~":
274
+
return "\\textasciitilde{}";
275
+
case "^":
276
+
return "\\textasciicircum{}";
277
+
default:
278
+
return char;
279
+
}
280
+
});
281
+
}
sosoft/kl1-screenshot.png
sosoft/kl1-screenshot.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+3
sosoft/kl1.aux
+3
sosoft/kl1.aux
+598
sosoft/kl1.log
+598
sosoft/kl1.log
···
1
+
This is XeTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-0.999995 (TeX Live 2023) (preloaded format=xelatex 2026.3.17) 2 APR 2026 11:19
2
+
entering extended mode
3
+
restricted \write18 enabled.
4
+
%&-line parsing enabled.
5
+
**kl1.tex
6
+
(./kl1.tex
7
+
LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1
8
+
L3 programming layer <2023-02-22>
9
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
10
+
Document Class: article 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX document class
11
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size12.clo
12
+
File: size12.clo 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX file (size option)
13
+
)
14
+
\c@part=\count181
15
+
\c@section=\count182
16
+
\c@subsection=\count183
17
+
\c@subsubsection=\count184
18
+
\c@paragraph=\count185
19
+
\c@subparagraph=\count186
20
+
\c@figure=\count187
21
+
\c@table=\count188
22
+
\abovecaptionskip=\skip48
23
+
\belowcaptionskip=\skip49
24
+
\bibindent=\dimen140
25
+
)
26
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/geometry/geometry.sty
27
+
Package: geometry 2020/01/02 v5.9 Page Geometry
28
+
29
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/keyval.sty
30
+
Package: keyval 2022/05/29 v1.15 key=value parser (DPC)
31
+
\KV@toks@=\toks16
32
+
)
33
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/ifvtex.sty
34
+
Package: ifvtex 2019/10/25 v1.7 ifvtex legacy package. Use iftex instead.
35
+
36
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/iftex/iftex.sty
37
+
Package: iftex 2022/02/03 v1.0f TeX engine tests
38
+
))
39
+
\Gm@cnth=\count189
40
+
\Gm@cntv=\count190
41
+
\c@Gm@tempcnt=\count191
42
+
\Gm@bindingoffset=\dimen141
43
+
\Gm@wd@mp=\dimen142
44
+
\Gm@odd@mp=\dimen143
45
+
\Gm@even@mp=\dimen144
46
+
\Gm@layoutwidth=\dimen145
47
+
\Gm@layoutheight=\dimen146
48
+
\Gm@layouthoffset=\dimen147
49
+
\Gm@layoutvoffset=\dimen148
50
+
\Gm@dimlist=\toks17
51
+
)
52
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.sty
53
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3packages/xparse/xparse.sty
54
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3kernel/expl3.sty
55
+
Package: expl3 2023-02-22 L3 programming layer (loader)
56
+
57
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3backend/l3backend-xetex.def
58
+
File: l3backend-xetex.def 2023-01-16 L3 backend support: XeTeX
59
+
\g__graphics_track_int=\count192
60
+
\l__pdf_internal_box=\box51
61
+
\g__pdf_backend_object_int=\count193
62
+
\g__pdf_backend_annotation_int=\count194
63
+
\g__pdf_backend_link_int=\count195
64
+
))
65
+
Package: xparse 2023-02-02 L3 Experimental document command parser
66
+
)
67
+
Package: fontspec 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTeX
68
+
69
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec-xetex.sty
70
+
Package: fontspec-xetex 2022/01/15 v2.8a Font selection for XeLaTeX and LuaLaTe
71
+
X
72
+
\l__fontspec_script_int=\count196
73
+
\l__fontspec_language_int=\count197
74
+
\l__fontspec_strnum_int=\count198
75
+
\l__fontspec_tmp_int=\count199
76
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_int=\count266
77
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_int=\count267
78
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_int=\count268
79
+
\l__fontspec_em_int=\count269
80
+
\l__fontspec_emdef_int=\count270
81
+
\l__fontspec_strong_int=\count271
82
+
\l__fontspec_strongdef_int=\count272
83
+
\l__fontspec_tmpa_dim=\dimen149
84
+
\l__fontspec_tmpb_dim=\dimen150
85
+
\l__fontspec_tmpc_dim=\dimen151
86
+
87
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/fontenc.sty
88
+
Package: fontenc 2021/04/29 v2.0v Standard LaTeX package
89
+
)
90
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/fontspec/fontspec.cfg)))
91
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/xcolor/xcolor.sty
92
+
Package: xcolor 2022/06/12 v2.14 LaTeX color extensions (UK)
93
+
94
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/color.cfg
95
+
File: color.cfg 2016/01/02 v1.6 sample color configuration
96
+
)
97
+
Package xcolor Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 227.
98
+
99
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-def/xetex.def
100
+
File: xetex.def 2022/09/22 v5.0n Graphics/color driver for xetex
101
+
)
102
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/mathcolor.ltx)
103
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `cmy' substituted by `cmy0' on input line 1353.
104
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `RGB' extended on input line 1369.
105
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HTML' substituted by `rgb' on input line 1371.
106
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Hsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1372.
107
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `tHsb' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1373.
108
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `HSB' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1374.
109
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `Gray' substituted by `gray' on input line 1375.
110
+
Package xcolor Info: Model `wave' substituted by `hsb' on input line 1376.
111
+
)
112
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz.sty
113
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgf.sty
114
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.sty
115
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-common.tex
116
+
\pgfutil@everybye=\toks18
117
+
\pgfutil@tempdima=\dimen152
118
+
\pgfutil@tempdimb=\dimen153
119
+
)
120
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfutil-latex.def
121
+
\pgfutil@abb=\box52
122
+
)
123
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfrcs.code.tex
124
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/pgf.revision.tex)
125
+
Package: pgfrcs 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
126
+
))
127
+
Package: pgf 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
128
+
129
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.sty
130
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphicx.sty
131
+
Package: graphicx 2021/09/16 v1.2d Enhanced LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
132
+
133
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/graphics.sty
134
+
Package: graphics 2022/03/10 v1.4e Standard LaTeX Graphics (DPC,SPQR)
135
+
136
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics/trig.sty
137
+
Package: trig 2021/08/11 v1.11 sin cos tan (DPC)
138
+
)
139
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/graphics-cfg/graphics.cfg
140
+
File: graphics.cfg 2016/06/04 v1.11 sample graphics configuration
141
+
)
142
+
Package graphics Info: Driver file: xetex.def on input line 107.
143
+
)
144
+
\Gin@req@height=\dimen154
145
+
\Gin@req@width=\dimen155
146
+
)
147
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.sty
148
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys.code.tex
149
+
Package: pgfsys 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
150
+
151
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex
152
+
\pgfkeys@pathtoks=\toks19
153
+
\pgfkeys@temptoks=\toks20
154
+
155
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeyslibraryfiltered
156
+
.code.tex
157
+
\pgfkeys@tmptoks=\toks21
158
+
))
159
+
\pgf@x=\dimen156
160
+
\pgf@y=\dimen157
161
+
\pgf@xa=\dimen158
162
+
\pgf@ya=\dimen159
163
+
\pgf@xb=\dimen160
164
+
\pgf@yb=\dimen161
165
+
\pgf@xc=\dimen162
166
+
\pgf@yc=\dimen163
167
+
\pgf@xd=\dimen164
168
+
\pgf@yd=\dimen165
169
+
\w@pgf@writea=\write3
170
+
\r@pgf@reada=\read2
171
+
\c@pgf@counta=\count273
172
+
\c@pgf@countb=\count274
173
+
\c@pgf@countc=\count275
174
+
\c@pgf@countd=\count276
175
+
\t@pgf@toka=\toks22
176
+
\t@pgf@tokb=\toks23
177
+
\t@pgf@tokc=\toks24
178
+
\pgf@sys@id@count=\count277
179
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgf.cfg
180
+
File: pgf.cfg 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
181
+
)
182
+
Driver file for pgf: pgfsys-xetex.def
183
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-xetex.def
184
+
File: pgfsys-xetex.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
185
+
186
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def
187
+
File: pgfsys-dvipdfmx.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
188
+
189
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsys-common-pdf.de
190
+
f
191
+
File: pgfsys-common-pdf.def 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
192
+
)
193
+
\pgfsys@objnum=\count278
194
+
)))
195
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsyssoftpath.code.
196
+
tex
197
+
File: pgfsyssoftpath.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
198
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@smallbuffer@items=\count279
199
+
\pgfsyssoftpath@bigbuffer@items=\count280
200
+
)
201
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/systemlayer/pgfsysprotocol.code.
202
+
tex
203
+
File: pgfsysprotocol.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
204
+
))
205
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcore.code.tex
206
+
Package: pgfcore 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
207
+
208
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex
209
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathutil.code.tex)
210
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathparser.code.tex
211
+
\pgfmath@dimen=\dimen166
212
+
\pgfmath@count=\count281
213
+
\pgfmath@box=\box53
214
+
\pgfmath@toks=\toks25
215
+
\pgfmath@stack@operand=\toks26
216
+
\pgfmath@stack@operation=\toks27
217
+
)
218
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.code.tex)
219
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.basic.code
220
+
.tex)
221
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.trigonomet
222
+
ric.code.tex)
223
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.random.cod
224
+
e.tex)
225
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.comparison
226
+
.code.tex)
227
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.base.code.
228
+
tex)
229
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.round.code
230
+
.tex)
231
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.misc.code.
232
+
tex)
233
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfunctions.integerari
234
+
thmetics.code.tex)
235
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathcalc.code.tex)
236
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmathfloat.code.tex
237
+
\c@pgfmathroundto@lastzeros=\count282
238
+
))
239
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfint.code.tex)
240
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepoints.code.te
241
+
x
242
+
File: pgfcorepoints.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
243
+
\pgf@picminx=\dimen167
244
+
\pgf@picmaxx=\dimen168
245
+
\pgf@picminy=\dimen169
246
+
\pgf@picmaxy=\dimen170
247
+
\pgf@pathminx=\dimen171
248
+
\pgf@pathmaxx=\dimen172
249
+
\pgf@pathminy=\dimen173
250
+
\pgf@pathmaxy=\dimen174
251
+
\pgf@xx=\dimen175
252
+
\pgf@xy=\dimen176
253
+
\pgf@yx=\dimen177
254
+
\pgf@yy=\dimen178
255
+
\pgf@zx=\dimen179
256
+
\pgf@zy=\dimen180
257
+
)
258
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathconstruct.
259
+
code.tex
260
+
File: pgfcorepathconstruct.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
261
+
\pgf@path@lastx=\dimen181
262
+
\pgf@path@lasty=\dimen182
263
+
)
264
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathusage.code
265
+
.tex
266
+
File: pgfcorepathusage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
267
+
\pgf@shorten@end@additional=\dimen183
268
+
\pgf@shorten@start@additional=\dimen184
269
+
)
270
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorescopes.code.te
271
+
x
272
+
File: pgfcorescopes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
273
+
\pgfpic=\box54
274
+
\pgf@hbox=\box55
275
+
\pgf@layerbox@main=\box56
276
+
\pgf@picture@serial@count=\count283
277
+
)
278
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoregraphicstate.c
279
+
ode.tex
280
+
File: pgfcoregraphicstate.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
281
+
\pgflinewidth=\dimen185
282
+
)
283
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransformation
284
+
s.code.tex
285
+
File: pgfcoretransformations.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
286
+
\pgf@pt@x=\dimen186
287
+
\pgf@pt@y=\dimen187
288
+
\pgf@pt@temp=\dimen188
289
+
)
290
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorequick.code.tex
291
+
File: pgfcorequick.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
292
+
)
293
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreobjects.code.t
294
+
ex
295
+
File: pgfcoreobjects.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
296
+
)
297
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepathprocessing
298
+
.code.tex
299
+
File: pgfcorepathprocessing.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
300
+
)
301
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorearrows.code.te
302
+
x
303
+
File: pgfcorearrows.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
304
+
\pgfarrowsep=\dimen189
305
+
)
306
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreshade.code.tex
307
+
File: pgfcoreshade.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
308
+
\pgf@max=\dimen190
309
+
\pgf@sys@shading@range@num=\count284
310
+
\pgf@shadingcount=\count285
311
+
)
312
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreimage.code.tex
313
+
File: pgfcoreimage.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
314
+
)
315
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoreexternal.code.
316
+
tex
317
+
File: pgfcoreexternal.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
318
+
\pgfexternal@startupbox=\box57
319
+
)
320
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorelayers.code.te
321
+
x
322
+
File: pgfcorelayers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
323
+
)
324
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcoretransparency.c
325
+
ode.tex
326
+
File: pgfcoretransparency.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
327
+
)
328
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorepatterns.code.
329
+
tex
330
+
File: pgfcorepatterns.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
331
+
)
332
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/pgfcorerdf.code.tex
333
+
File: pgfcorerdf.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
334
+
)))
335
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex
336
+
File: pgfmoduleshapes.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
337
+
\pgfnodeparttextbox=\box58
338
+
) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmoduleplot.code.tex
339
+
File: pgfmoduleplot.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
340
+
)
341
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-0-65
342
+
.sty
343
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-0-65 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
344
+
\pgf@nodesepstart=\dimen191
345
+
\pgf@nodesepend=\dimen192
346
+
)
347
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/compatibility/pgfcomp-version-1-18
348
+
.sty
349
+
Package: pgfcomp-version-1-18 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
350
+
)) (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgffor.sty
351
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.sty
352
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgfkeys.code.tex))
353
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/pgf/math/pgfmath.sty
354
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/math/pgfmath.code.tex))
355
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/utilities/pgffor.code.tex
356
+
Package: pgffor 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
357
+
\pgffor@iter=\dimen193
358
+
\pgffor@skip=\dimen194
359
+
\pgffor@stack=\toks28
360
+
\pgffor@toks=\toks29
361
+
))
362
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/tikz.code.tex
363
+
Package: tikz 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
364
+
365
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/libraries/pgflibraryplothandlers
366
+
.code.tex
367
+
File: pgflibraryplothandlers.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
368
+
\pgf@plot@mark@count=\count286
369
+
\pgfplotmarksize=\dimen195
370
+
)
371
+
\tikz@lastx=\dimen196
372
+
\tikz@lasty=\dimen197
373
+
\tikz@lastxsaved=\dimen198
374
+
\tikz@lastysaved=\dimen199
375
+
\tikz@lastmovetox=\dimen256
376
+
\tikz@lastmovetoy=\dimen257
377
+
\tikzleveldistance=\dimen258
378
+
\tikzsiblingdistance=\dimen259
379
+
\tikz@figbox=\box59
380
+
\tikz@figbox@bg=\box60
381
+
\tikz@tempbox=\box61
382
+
\tikz@tempbox@bg=\box62
383
+
\tikztreelevel=\count287
384
+
\tikznumberofchildren=\count288
385
+
\tikznumberofcurrentchild=\count289
386
+
\tikz@fig@count=\count290
387
+
388
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/modules/pgfmodulematrix.code.tex
389
+
File: pgfmodulematrix.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
390
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentrow=\count291
391
+
\pgfmatrixcurrentcolumn=\count292
392
+
\pgf@matrix@numberofcolumns=\count293
393
+
)
394
+
\tikz@expandcount=\count294
395
+
396
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/libraries/tik
397
+
zlibrarytopaths.code.tex
398
+
File: tikzlibrarytopaths.code.tex 2023-01-15 v3.1.10 (3.1.10)
399
+
)))
400
+
401
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Regular(0)' created for font
402
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Regular' with options
403
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regu
404
+
lar,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold].
405
+
(fontspec)
406
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
407
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
408
+
(fontspec)
409
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
410
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Regular.ttf]/OT:script=latn;langu
411
+
age=dflt;"
412
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
413
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
414
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
415
+
=dflt;"
416
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
417
+
418
+
419
+
Package fontspec Info: Font family 'ComicRelief-Bold(0)' created for font
420
+
(fontspec) 'ComicRelief-Bold' with options
421
+
(fontspec) [Path=fonts/,Extension=.ttf,UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold
422
+
,BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,FakeBold=1.8].
423
+
(fontspec)
424
+
(fontspec) This font family consists of the following NFSS
425
+
(fontspec) series/shapes:
426
+
(fontspec)
427
+
(fontspec) - 'normal' (m/n) with NFSS spec.:
428
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
429
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
430
+
(fontspec) - 'small caps' (m/sc) with NFSS spec.:
431
+
(fontspec) - 'bold' (b/n) with NFSS spec.:
432
+
(fontspec) <->"[fonts/ComicRelief-Bold.ttf]/OT:script=latn;language
433
+
=dflt;embolden=1.8;"
434
+
(fontspec) - 'bold small caps' (b/sc) with NFSS spec.:
435
+
436
+
(./kl1.aux)
437
+
\openout1 = `kl1.aux'.
438
+
439
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OML/cmm/m/it on input line 36.
440
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
441
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMS/cmsy/m/n on input line 36.
442
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
443
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OT1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
444
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
445
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for T1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
446
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
447
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TS1/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
448
+
LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for TS1+cmr on input line 3
449
+
6.
450
+
451
+
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/ts1cmr.fd
452
+
File: ts1cmr.fd 2022/07/10 v2.5l Standard LaTeX font definitions
453
+
)
454
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
455
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
456
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
457
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMX/cmex/m/n on input line 36.
458
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
459
+
LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 36.
460
+
LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 36.
461
+
462
+
*geometry* driver: auto-detecting
463
+
*geometry* detected driver: xetex
464
+
*geometry* verbose mode - [ preamble ] result:
465
+
* driver: xetex
466
+
* paper: custom
467
+
* layout: <same size as paper>
468
+
* layoutoffset:(h,v)=(0.0pt,0.0pt)
469
+
* modes:
470
+
* h-part:(L,W,R)=(21.68121pt, 155.38007pt, 21.68121pt)
471
+
* v-part:(T,H,B)=(21.68121pt, 299.92006pt, 21.68121pt)
472
+
* \paperwidth=198.7425pt
473
+
* \paperheight=343.28249pt
474
+
* \textwidth=155.38007pt
475
+
* \textheight=299.92006pt
476
+
* \oddsidemargin=-50.58878pt
477
+
* \evensidemargin=-50.58878pt
478
+
* \topmargin=-87.58878pt
479
+
* \headheight=12.0pt
480
+
* \headsep=25.0pt
481
+
* \topskip=12.0pt
482
+
* \footskip=30.0pt
483
+
* \marginparwidth=44.0pt
484
+
* \marginparsep=10.0pt
485
+
* \columnsep=10.0pt
486
+
* \skip\footins=10.8pt plus 4.0pt minus 2.0pt
487
+
* \hoffset=0.0pt
488
+
* \voffset=0.0pt
489
+
* \mag=1000
490
+
* \@twocolumnfalse
491
+
* \@twosidefalse
492
+
* \@mparswitchfalse
493
+
* \@reversemarginfalse
494
+
* (1in=72.27pt=25.4mm, 1cm=28.453pt)
495
+
496
+
497
+
Package fontspec Info: Adjusting the maths setup (use [no-math] to avoid
498
+
(fontspec) this).
499
+
500
+
\symlegacymaths=\mathgroup4
501
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `legacymaths' in version `bold'
502
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> OT1/cmr/bx/n on input line 36.
503
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \acute on input line 36.
504
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \grave on input line 36.
505
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \ddot on input line 36.
506
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \tilde on input line 36.
507
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \bar on input line 36.
508
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \breve on input line 36.
509
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \check on input line 36.
510
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \hat on input line 36.
511
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \dot on input line 36.
512
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math accent \mathring on input line 36.
513
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \colon on input line 36.
514
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Gamma on input line 36.
515
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Delta on input line 36.
516
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Theta on input line 36.
517
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Lambda on input line 36.
518
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Xi on input line 36.
519
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Pi on input line 36.
520
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Sigma on input line 36.
521
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Upsilon on input line 36.
522
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Phi on input line 36.
523
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Psi on input line 36.
524
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \Omega on input line 36.
525
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring math symbol \mathdollar on input line 36.
526
+
LaTeX Font Info: Redeclaring symbol font `operators' on input line 36.
527
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
528
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `normal' on input line 36.
529
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
530
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
531
+
LaTeX Font Info: Encoding `OT1' has changed to `TU' for symbol font
532
+
(Font) `operators' in the math version `bold' on input line 36.
533
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
534
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
535
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `normal'
536
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/m/n on input line 36.
537
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `normal'
538
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/m/it --> TU/lmr/m/it on input line 36.
539
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathbf' in version `normal'
540
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 36.
541
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `normal'
542
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/m/n --> TU/lmss/m/n on input line 36.
543
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `normal'
544
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/lmtt/m/n on input line 36.
545
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting symbol font `operators' in version `bold'
546
+
(Font) TU/lmr/m/n --> TU/lmr/b/n on input line 36.
547
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathit' in version `bold'
548
+
(Font) OT1/cmr/bx/it --> TU/lmr/b/it on input line 36.
549
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathsf' in version `bold'
550
+
(Font) OT1/cmss/bx/n --> TU/lmss/b/n on input line 36.
551
+
LaTeX Font Info: Overwriting math alphabet `\mathtt' in version `bold'
552
+
(Font) OT1/cmtt/m/n --> TU/lmtt/b/n on input line 36.
553
+
File: kl1-screenshot.png Graphic file (type bmp)
554
+
<kl1-screenshot.png>
555
+
556
+
Overfull \hbox (5.78172pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 40--46
557
+
| []
558
+
[]
559
+
560
+
LaTeX Font Info: Calculating math sizes for size <9.5> on input line 52.
561
+
562
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OML/cmm/m/it' in size <9.5> not available
563
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
564
+
565
+
566
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OMS/cmsy/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
567
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
568
+
569
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
570
+
(Font) <9.5> on input line 52.
571
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
572
+
(Font) <6.64996> on input line 52.
573
+
LaTeX Font Info: External font `cmex10' loaded for size
574
+
(Font) <4.75> on input line 52.
575
+
576
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `OT1/cmr/m/n' in size <9.5> not available
577
+
(Font) size <9> substituted on input line 52.
578
+
579
+
File: qr-kl1.png Graphic file (type bmp)
580
+
<qr-kl1.png>
581
+
[1
582
+
583
+
] (./kl1.aux)
584
+
585
+
LaTeX Font Warning: Size substitutions with differences
586
+
(Font) up to 0.5pt have occurred.
587
+
588
+
)
589
+
Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
590
+
14518 strings out of 478682
591
+
341361 string characters out of 5849006
592
+
1846018 words of memory out of 6000000
593
+
34413 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000
594
+
513327 words of font info for 51 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000
595
+
14 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
596
+
100i,7n,104p,414b,582s stack positions out of 10000i,1000n,20000p,200000b,200000s
597
+
598
+
Output written on kl1.pdf (1 page).
sosoft/kl1.pdf
sosoft/kl1.pdf
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
sosoft/kl1.png
sosoft/kl1.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+80
sosoft/kl1.tex
+80
sosoft/kl1.tex
···
1
+
% Generated KidLisp score card for $kl1
2
+
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
3
+
\usepackage[
4
+
paperwidth=2.75in,
5
+
paperheight=4.75in,
6
+
top=0.3in,
7
+
bottom=0.3in,
8
+
left=0.3in,
9
+
right=0.3in,
10
+
]{geometry}
11
+
\usepackage{fontspec}
12
+
\usepackage{xcolor}
13
+
\usepackage{tikz}
14
+
\usepackage{graphicx}
15
+
16
+
\pagestyle{empty}
17
+
18
+
\newfontfamily\cardcodefont[
19
+
Path=fonts/,
20
+
Extension=.ttf,
21
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Regular,
22
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
23
+
]{ComicRelief-Regular}
24
+
\newfontfamily\cardlabelfont[
25
+
Path=fonts/,
26
+
Extension=.ttf,
27
+
UprightFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
28
+
BoldFont=ComicRelief-Bold,
29
+
FakeBold=1.8,
30
+
]{ComicRelief-Bold}
31
+
32
+
\definecolor{ink}{RGB}{0,0,0}
33
+
\newcommand{\safetyinset}{0.22in}
34
+
\newcommand{\safewidth}{2.31in}
35
+
36
+
\begin{document}
37
+
38
+
\vspace*{-0.26in}
39
+
40
+
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}%
41
+
\begin{tikzpicture}
42
+
\clip (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
43
+
\node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0pt] at (0,0)
44
+
{\includegraphics[width=\safewidth, height=\safewidth]{kl1-screenshot.png}};
45
+
\draw[black, line width=2.4pt] (0,0) rectangle (\safewidth,\safewidth);
46
+
\end{tikzpicture}\par
47
+
48
+
\vspace{0.03in}
49
+
50
+
\begingroup\offinterlineskip
51
+
\cardcodefont\bfseries\fontsize{9.5pt}{10.5pt}\selectfont\color{ink}
52
+
\noindent\hspace*{-0.08in}\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}}
53
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}black\\
54
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}mask w/2 0 w/2 h, ink zebra\\
55
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}box ? ? ?\\
56
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}unmask\\
57
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}scroll (? 0 -1 1) 10\\
58
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}ink zebra, line, spin 3, burn\\
59
+
\rule{0pt}{11pt}zoom 0.1, scroll frame/10\\
60
+
\end{tabular}
61
+
\endgroup
62
+
63
+
\vspace*{\fill}
64
+
65
+
\begin{tikzpicture}[remember picture, overlay]
66
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=0pt]
67
+
at ([xshift=-0.23in, yshift=0.75in]current page.south east)
68
+
{\colorbox{black}{%
69
+
\rule[-1pt]{0pt}{6.5pt}%
70
+
\kern-1pt{\cardlabelfont\bfseries\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\selectfont\color{white}\$kl1}\kern-0.5pt%
71
+
}};
72
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=black]
73
+
at ([xshift=-\safetyinset, yshift=\safetyinset]current page.south east)
74
+
{\rule{0.48in}{0.48in}};
75
+
\node[anchor=south east, inner sep=1pt, fill=white]
76
+
at ([xshift=-0.24in, yshift=0.24in]current page.south east)
77
+
{\includegraphics[width=0.48in]{qr-kl1.png}};
78
+
\end{tikzpicture}
79
+
80
+
\end{document}
sosoft/qr-24m.png
sosoft/qr-24m.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
sosoft/qr-duv.png
sosoft/qr-duv.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
sosoft/qr-kl1.png
sosoft/qr-kl1.png
This is a binary file and will not be displayed.
+7688
system/public/assets/papers/readings/text/Gallope-Harren-Hicks-The-Scores-Project-2025.txt
+7688
system/public/assets/papers/readings/text/Gallope-Harren-Hicks-The-Scores-Project-2025.txt
···
1
+
The Scores Project
2
+
The Scores Project
3
+
4
+
Essays on Experimental
5
+
Notation in Music, Art, Poetry,
6
+
and Dance, 1950–1975
7
+
8
+
Edited by
9
+
Michael Gallope
10
+
Natilee Harren
11
+
John Hicks
12
+
13
+
14
+
15
+
16
+
Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles
17
+
This publication was created using Quire™, a multiformat publishing tool
18
+
from Getty.
19
+
20
+
The free online edition of this open-access publication is available at
21
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/ and includes video, audio, and zoomable
22
+
illustrations. Free PDF and EPUB downloads of the book are also
23
+
available.
24
+
25
+
© 2025 J. Paul Getty Trust
26
+
27
+
28
+
29
+
30
+
The text of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
31
+
-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this
32
+
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. All
33
+
images are reproduced with the permission of the rights holders
34
+
acknowledged in captions and are expressly excluded from the CC BY-
35
+
NC license covering the rest of this publication. These images may not
36
+
be reproduced, copied, transmitted, or manipulated without consent
37
+
from the owners, who reserve all rights.
38
+
39
+
First edition 2025
40
+
Any revisions or corrections made to this publication after the first
41
+
edition date will be listed in detail in the project repository at https://
42
+
github.com/thegetty/scores. The revisions branch of the project
43
+
repository, when present, will show any changes currently under
44
+
consideration but not yet published here.
45
+
46
+
Published by the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles
47
+
Getty Publications
48
+
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 500
49
+
Los Angeles, California 90049-1682
50
+
getty.edu/publications/
51
+
52
+
Adriana Romero, Project Editor
53
+
Lisa Marietta, Manuscript Editor
54
+
Greg Albers, Digital Publications Manager
55
+
Andrew LeClair and E Roon Kang, Design
56
+
Molly McGeehan, Production
57
+
Karen Ehrmann and Pauline Lopez, Image and Rights Acquisition
58
+
Jenny Park and Alex Hallenbeck, Digital Assistants
59
+
60
+
Distributed in the United States and Canada by the University of
61
+
Chicago Press
62
+
63
+
Distributed outside the United States and Canada by Yale University
64
+
Press, London
65
+
66
+
Type composed in U001
67
+
68
+
Printed in China
69
+
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
70
+
Names: Gallope, Michael, editor. | Harren, Natilee, editor. | Hicks, John
71
+
(John Andrew), editor. | Getty Research Institute, issuing body.
72
+
Title: The scores project : essays on experimental notation in music, art,
73
+
poetry, and dance, 1950–1975 / edited by Michael Gallope, Natilee
74
+
Harren, and John Hicks.
75
+
Description: Los Angeles : Getty Research Institute, [2025] | Includes
76
+
bibliographical references. | Summary: “A collection of essays
77
+
examining experimental scores and source documents from the
78
+
postwar avant-gardes, interpreted by experts on art, music, dance,
79
+
and poetry”— Provided by publisher.
80
+
Identifiers: LCCN 2024032747 | ISBN 9781606069332 (paperback) |
81
+
ISBN 9781606069356 (pdf) | ISBN 9781606069349 (epub)
82
+
Subjects: LCSH: Avant-garde (Aesthetics)—History—20th century. |
83
+
Arts—Experimental methods—History—20th century. | Performance
84
+
art—History—20th century. | Musical notation—History—20th
85
+
century. | Movement notation—History—20th century.
86
+
Classification: LCC NX458 .S37 2025 | DDC 700/.41109045—dc23/
87
+
eng/20240926 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/
88
+
2024032747
89
+
90
+
Every effort has been made to contact the owners and photographers of
91
+
illustrations reproduced here whose names do not appear in the
92
+
captions. Photographs and videos of items in the holdings of the Getty
93
+
Research Institute are courtesy the Research Institute. Anyone having
94
+
further information concerning copyright holders is asked to contact
95
+
Getty Publications so this information can be included in future
96
+
printings.
97
+
98
+
This publication was peer reviewed through a single-masked process in
99
+
which the reviewers remained anonymous.
100
+
About the Project
101
+
102
+
103
+
104
+
105
+
In the mid-twentieth century, individuals across visual art,
106
+
music, poetry, theater, and dance began using
107
+
experimental scores, revolutionizing artistic practice and
108
+
fostering interdisciplinary collaboration. Featuring over
109
+
two thousand images and audiovisual materials, The
110
+
Scores Project is a unique digital publication that provides
111
+
a comprehensive view of this historical moment through
112
+
select experimental scores by George Brecht, Sylvano
113
+
Bussotti, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Allan Kaprow,
114
+
Alison Knowles, Jackson Mac Low, Benjamin Patterson,
115
+
Yvonne Rainer, Mieko Shiomi, and La Monte Young, as
116
+
well as commentaries from an interdisciplinary team of
117
+
scholars, rekindling a sense of wonder at this innovative
118
+
and complex period in art history.
119
+
120
+
Published to accompany the digital edition, this
121
+
print book includes the introduction, complete
122
+
commentaries, and a selection of images from the
123
+
online publication. URLs are provided throughout—
124
+
in captions and chapter openers—to encourage
125
+
readers to engage with the online edition. To view
126
+
the project in its entirety, please visit getty.edu/
127
+
publications/scores/.
128
+
Contents
129
+
130
+
131
+
132
+
133
+
1 Introduction
134
+
Michael Gallope
135
+
Natilee Harren
136
+
John Hicks
137
+
138
+
69 1. Morton Feldman: Intersection 3 (1953)
139
+
Michael Gallope
140
+
141
+
81 2. John Cage: Concert for Piano and Orchestra
142
+
(1958)
143
+
Michael Gallope
144
+
Nancy Perloff
145
+
146
+
95 3. Sylvano Bussotti: Five Piano Pieces for
147
+
David Tudor (1959)
148
+
Michael Gallope
149
+
150
+
111 4. Benjamin Patterson: Paper Piece (1960)
151
+
George E. Lewis
152
+
153
+
127 5. La Monte Young, ed.: An Anthology of
154
+
Chance Operations (1962–63)
155
+
Benjamin Piekut
156
+
157
+
143 6. George Brecht: Drip Music (Drip Event)
158
+
(1959–62), from Water Yam (1963)
159
+
Natilee Harren
160
+
161
+
159 7. Jackson Mac Low: Three Social Projects
162
+
(1963)
163
+
John Hicks
164
+
165
+
173 8. Yvonne Rainer: We Shall Run (1963)
166
+
Julia Bryan-Wilson
167
+
191 9. Alison Knowles: The Identical Lunch (late
168
+
1960s–early ’70s)
169
+
Emily Ruth Capper
170
+
171
+
207 10. Mieko Shiomi: Spatial Poem (1965–75)
172
+
Natilee Harren
173
+
174
+
225 11. Allan Kaprow: Routine (1973–75)
175
+
Emily Ruth Capper
176
+
177
+
245 Contributors
178
+
179
+
247 Acknowledgments
180
+
Introduction
181
+
182
+
Michael Gallope
183
+
Natilee Harren
184
+
John Hicks
185
+
186
+
187
+
188
+
In the decades following World War II, the musical score
189
+
emerged as a unique and powerful medium for experimental
190
+
art. A new movement of visual artists, composers, poets,
191
+
and performers reimagined the score—traditionally defined
192
+
as the written representation of a musical composition—as a
193
+
tool for structuring experimentation in the nascent fields of
194
+
performance art, conceptualism, and intermedia. They drew
195
+
inspiration from unconventional musical notations devised in
196
+
the early to mid-1950s by the composers Earle Brown, John
197
+
Cage, and Morton Feldman. The new movement’s use of
198
+
experimental scores spread during the 1960s through
199
+
publications, festivals, concerts, classrooms, networked
200
+
correspondence, exhibitions, happenings, and a renewed
201
+
awareness of score-like antecedents in the charts, diagrams,
202
+
sketches, and written instructions of earlier avant-gardes,
203
+
from Dada and Surrealism to the Bauhaus. By the later years
204
+
of the 1960s, diverse communities of artists, musicians,
205
+
poets, and dancers had transformed the possibilities of the
206
+
score into an ever-expanding universe of textual, symbolic,
207
+
and graphic marks. They used experimental scores to stage a
208
+
multitude of practices that dismantled and recast the
209
+
traditional boundaries of artistic media.
210
+
Important precedents for this movement emerged
211
+
during the 1950s. A number of early experimental scores
212
+
were written expressly for the pianist David Tudor, a
213
+
specialist performer who earned near-universal critical
214
+
respect for the meticulous care he took in realizing even the
215
+
most open-ended musical notations. Composers and artists
216
+
who wrote scores for Tudor devised notations that reworked
217
+
218
+
................
219
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/intro/ 1
220
+
and, in some cases, abandoned the Western musical staff,
221
+
with its usual notes, beams, rests, meters, and key
222
+
signatures. They crafted intricate diagrams, freehand
223
+
drawings, and textual instructions that dramatically
224
+
expanded the performer’s role in interpreting a given score.
225
+
To aid in his performances of such “indeterminate” works,
226
+
Tudor first created in 1954 what he called a “realization”: a
227
+
translation of the open-ended elements of an experimental
228
+
score into a personalized notation system suitable for
229
+
performance. Due to the strength of Tudor’s international
230
+
reputation, his commitment to his collaborators’ desires to
231
+
experiment across disciplinary and artistic boundaries, and
232
+
his famously accurate and deadpan performances of even
233
+
the most outrageous stunts, the pianist, in the years until
234
+
about 1961, himself served as a key agent for score-based
235
+
experimentation. By virtue of his reputation and
236
+
accomplishments, Tudor would help establish a broader
237
+
international legitimacy for avant-garde performance.
238
+
Alongside the new forms of notation, committed performers
239
+
such as Tudor played a crucial role in presenting these
240
+
challenging works to skeptical audiences, thereby opening
241
+
new possibilities for performance in an emerging culture of
242
+
indeterminate composition.
243
+
By the late 1950s, a new generation of visual and
244
+
performing artists began to use experimental scores to push
245
+
their practice beyond accepted conventions of genre or
246
+
medium. An important catalyst for these activities was John
247
+
Cage’s course in experimental composition (1956–59) at
248
+
the New School for Social Research. Cage’s course attracted
249
+
artists who did not consider themselves musicians but were
250
+
inspired—and, indeed, tasked by Cage with exploring
251
+
different approaches to composing time-based performance
252
+
works by experimenting with the score format. In turn,
253
+
Cage’s students, including George Brecht and Allan Kaprow,
254
+
adapted scores to hybridize and reconceptualize a number of
255
+
existing artistic mediums (painting, sculpture, film, printed
256
+
257
+
258
+
259
+
2 Introduction
260
+
text, collage, etc.), thus producing new forms of what Dick
261
+
Higgins would term intermedia.1
262
+
Through loosely organized peer networks forged by
263
+
performances, festivals, mailed ephemera, publications, and
264
+
word-of-mouth transmission, the 1960s saw an
265
+
international explosion of experimental scoring practices. An
266
+
important incubator of these activities was Fluxus, a loosely
267
+
organized experimental performance and publishing
268
+
collective launched in September 1962 in Wiesbaden, West
269
+
Germany, whose membership spanned Western Europe, the
270
+
United States, and Japan. Compositions by Fluxus affiliates
271
+
including Alison Knowles, Jackson Mac Low, Benjamin
272
+
Patterson, and Mieko Shiomi conveyed instructions for
273
+
participatory events, broke down professionalized cultures
274
+
of performance, posed philosophical questions to
275
+
audiences, and experimented with various symbols and
276
+
modes of written representation. At a remove from the
277
+
layered complexities of modernist poetry, the language of
278
+
their scores could startle readers with straightforward
279
+
instructions for specific, often mundane tasks or parody
280
+
technical and bureaucratic languages of modernization. In
281
+
other moments, their graphically elaborate works
282
+
emphasized visual interest over readability. In the context of
283
+
a gallery exhibition or publication, an experimental score
284
+
could be seen as a work of visual art in its own right,
285
+
independent of any realization or performance. Meanwhile,
286
+
poets such as Mac Low, and dancers, including those
287
+
associated with New York’s Judson Dance Theater, played
288
+
with scores as a way of rethinking and recalibrating their
289
+
approaches to narrative, materiality, spectacle, and
290
+
authorship.
291
+
Philosophically speaking, experimental scores
292
+
enabled a shift in investment from the static polish of a
293
+
finished work to procedures and processes—often iterative,
294
+
indeterminate, or chance-derived—in a way that vastly
295
+
expanded and challenged what counted as a work of art.
296
+
Artists and critics of the time perceived this process-based
297
+
298
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 3
299
+
work as facilitating escape from the fashionable but
300
+
dogmatic theory of modernism that had been forwarded by
301
+
the eminent American art critic Clement Greenberg, whose
302
+
theory valued the specialized autonomy of modernist
303
+
abstraction against the threat of popular kitsch, and prized
304
+
the rigorous separation of artistic mediums (painting,
305
+
sculpture, etc.) from one another.2 In retrospect, we can see
306
+
artists’ turn to scores in this moment as a major event that
307
+
helped usher in the series of paradigm shifts later associated
308
+
with the demise of Greenbergian modernism, a change that
309
+
prepared the ground for more recently accepted ideas about
310
+
the destabilized nature of both contemporary art (as idea and
311
+
object) and the complex identity of artists in relation to their
312
+
work.
313
+
Existing accounts of this period have identified the
314
+
score as a widely adopted tool among avant-garde artists,
315
+
but there has not previously been a comprehensive scholarly
316
+
overview of the origins and development of the score as a
317
+
distinct transdisciplinary artistic medium deserving of its
318
+
own narrative, alongside other recognized twentieth-
319
+
century genres such as collage or the readymade.3 By
320
+
foregrounding the role of experimental scores in the
321
+
development of contemporary art and performance broadly
322
+
speaking, The Scores Project resituates an array of
323
+
historiographic debates in Western art around 1960: the
324
+
aesthetic evolution of modernism into postmodernism; the
325
+
relationship of postwar avant-garde movements to their
326
+
prewar antecedents in Europe; differing conceptions of
327
+
composition, improvisation, and indeterminacy; the
328
+
increasingly porous relationships between artworks and
329
+
their surrounding social worlds; and conflicting ideas of skill,
330
+
authority, and authenticity.
331
+
Focused on this time period and phenomenon, The
332
+
Scores Project presents and analyzes a selection of
333
+
post–World War II scores drawn from the holdings of the
334
+
Getty Research Institute (GRI). The project’s custom-
335
+
designed digital interface helps readers better understand
336
+
337
+
4 Introduction
338
+
the rich historical and international contexts in play while
339
+
also grasping the many ways experimental scores rewired
340
+
artistic coordinates of space and time. In this way, The
341
+
Scores Project is not merely a digitization effort; it is an
342
+
interactive, critical anthology—a book, exhibition, digital
343
+
research repository, and interactive dataset all in one. Eleven
344
+
chapters, each focused on a particular artist or composer,
345
+
reproduce curated selections of scores and related archival
346
+
materials. The individuals featured are Morton Feldman,
347
+
John Cage, Sylvano Bussotti, Benjamin Patterson, La Monte
348
+
Young, George Brecht, Jackson Mac Low, Yvonne Rainer,
349
+
Alison Knowles, Mieko Shiomi, and Allan Kaprow. Most of
350
+
these figures knew one another and lived and worked in
351
+
proximity to New York, with the exception of Shiomi, who
352
+
was in Osaka, Japan. But they also traveled to Europe and
353
+
East Asia, where their experimentations impacted and were
354
+
impacted by a wider network of avant-garde figures. Chapter
355
+
5, on Young’s An Anthology of Chance Operations
356
+
(1962–63), functions as a kind of temporal hinge or gateway
357
+
linking 1950s activities to the efflorescence of notation in
358
+
the ’60s. It includes a complete digitization of this
359
+
watershed compendium of experimental notations and
360
+
position statements, and it gestures outward to a broader
361
+
milieu of artists engaged in the use of scores.
362
+
363
+
364
+
Navigating The Scores Project
365
+
366
+
It is notoriously difficult to demonstrate the technical
367
+
particulars of any of these scores when bound by the limited
368
+
space of a gallery exhibition, a published book, a concert
369
+
program, or by traditional audio or video documentation.
370
+
With this difficulty in mind, our collaborators at Getty
371
+
Publications and Getty Digital, along with the project
372
+
designers Andrew LeClair and E Roon Kang, devised an
373
+
interface that facilitates viewing, reading, listening, and
374
+
guided engagement with over two thousand historical
375
+
documents, images, films, videos, and recordings. LeClair
376
+
377
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 5
378
+
and Kang’s custom design aims to maximize technical and
379
+
historical understanding of experimental scores for a wide
380
+
range of readers, both specialist and nonspecialist, who may
381
+
be drawn to this material from different disciplinary
382
+
orientations. Each chapter features the following: (1) a
383
+
Commentary section with a scholarly essay by an expert
384
+
author that narrates the score’s original context and
385
+
describes its key elements; (2) a click-through Score section
386
+
that showcases high-resolution images of the scores; (3) a
387
+
Playback section that contains time-based content in audio,
388
+
video, and interactive formats, including historical
389
+
realizations alongside newly commissioned performances
390
+
directed by a diverse cohort of contemporary performance
391
+
artists; and (4) an Archive section with a curated trove of
392
+
relevant primary materials drawn largely from Special
393
+
Collections at the GRI, including ephemera and 3-D imaging
394
+
of related objects. These archival materials contextualize the
395
+
scores and will facilitate new research by scholars and
396
+
students who may be unable to travel to the GRI to access
397
+
these unique items in person. All these primary materials are
398
+
also collected in the book’s online Object Index, where
399
+
readers can fully explore their contents and filter them by
400
+
different categories. Readers can also view the figures in
401
+
each chapter in greater detail by following the URLs provided
402
+
in the captions.
403
+
Within a single chapter, readers can inspect
404
+
preparatory compositional sketches, compare recorded
405
+
performances, peruse historical concert reviews, and pore
406
+
over intimate correspondence between composers and
407
+
performers. Framing each featured score is a scholarly
408
+
commentary that situates the work historically and
409
+
theoretically, provides a cohesive overview of the chapter’s
410
+
contents, and guides the reader in how to approach the
411
+
wealth of materials included. In exploring the commentaries
412
+
as well as the extended captions nested in the subsections of
413
+
each chapter, users will enjoy an experience akin to peeking
414
+
over the shoulder of a scholar as they examine rare archival
415
+
416
+
6 Introduction
417
+
materials. Readers will be prompted to note details and
418
+
quirks in the scores, to play back animations that help
419
+
decode various notations, and to ponder the ways in which
420
+
words, images, and sounds either translate or fail to
421
+
translate into one another.
422
+
Readers will also be alerted to links to other chapters,
423
+
artists, and scores; in this manner, the primary digital format
424
+
of The Scores Project demonstrates the networked quality of
425
+
the materials and histories it contains. By bringing these
426
+
works together in one accessible interface and presenting
427
+
them in a way that reduces the technical barriers that scores
428
+
often present to nonspecialists, we hope to spur increased
429
+
interdisciplinary collaboration and pedagogy among art
430
+
historians, music scholars, literary and performance
431
+
scholars, and others. Just as importantly, The Scores
432
+
Project provides exciting new ways for the general public to
433
+
access and engage with these materials. Above all, our aim
434
+
is to foster a renewed sense of wonder about this innovative
435
+
and historically complex moment in the history of postwar
436
+
art.
437
+
In their time, experimental scores of the postwar era
438
+
provoked aesthetic shifts and new alliances across a wide
439
+
array of artistic disciplines, and yet historical accounts of
440
+
these materials have often remained constrained by siloed
441
+
conversations within the disciplines of music studies, art
442
+
history, literary studies, and performance studies. As a
443
+
result, the multidisciplinary history of experimental scores
444
+
has remained underappreciated, its scholarship fragmented
445
+
into partial accounts that tend to privilege one medium and
446
+
its artistic community above others. Faced with avant-garde
447
+
artists who made it their life’s work to question
448
+
professionalized boundaries, disciplinary rigidity on the part
449
+
of scholars runs the risk of distorting the historical record or
450
+
producing biased theories. Therefore, we as editors—with
451
+
training in the fields of music studies (Gallope), art history
452
+
(Harren), and literary studies (Hicks)—have selected for The
453
+
Scores Project a series of works drawn from the GRI’s
454
+
455
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 7
456
+
Special Collections that span artistic disciplines and
457
+
productively trouble them along the way. New texts by Julia
458
+
Bryan-Wilson, Emily Ruth Capper, George E. Lewis, Nancy
459
+
Perloff, and Benjamin Piekut broaden the project’s
460
+
intellectual reach even further. The multitude of voices and
461
+
intellectual investments represented here constitute a
462
+
polyphonic ensemble and not an irreproachable canon, an
463
+
outcome that was also our aim as we curated the list of
464
+
artists and scores. We hope the interdisciplinary
465
+
connectivity of The Scores Project facilitates stronger
466
+
understanding of the inner workings of each score across
467
+
the domains of image, word, and sound, and helps to build
468
+
and model an expansive, collaborative community of
469
+
scholars, readers, and performers appropriate to this
470
+
formative moment in the history of experimental art-making.
471
+
In this introduction, we offer accounts of the
472
+
intertwined narratives on the antecedents, creation, and
473
+
reception of experimental scores. We begin with the section
474
+
“Music, Scores, and Indeterminacy,” which situates The
475
+
Scores Project within global histories of musical notation
476
+
and the various musical avant-gardes, paying particular
477
+
attention to the distinction between indeterminacy and
478
+
improvisation, especially as it relates to race. We then turn,
479
+
in the section “Scoring Intermedia,” to histories of visual and
480
+
performance art, looking at precursors to this experimental
481
+
tradition in early twentieth-century avant-gardes (including
482
+
Dada and Surrealism) and in the interdisciplinary pedagogy
483
+
developed at Black Mountain College and its predecessor,
484
+
the Bauhaus. In the final portion, “Poetry and Experimental
485
+
Scores,” we discuss the score-like qualities of literature and
486
+
prosody, showing how poets and literary critics referred to
487
+
the musical score as a model in their longstanding debates
488
+
over the relative status of a printed text compared to
489
+
performed versions of a literary work.
490
+
By foregrounding the materiality, social history, and
491
+
performance culture of experimental scores, The Scores
492
+
Project refocuses attention away from well-worn
493
+
494
+
8 Introduction
495
+
disagreements over scores, performances, and musical
496
+
works in the philosophy of music.4 Instead, the project
497
+
draws attention to a more comparative understanding of the
498
+
fine-grained social and intellectual histories of when, how,
499
+
and why twentieth-century artists turned to experimental
500
+
scores in the first place. In this way, the project invites
501
+
readers to consider the importance of a medium that is
502
+
extraordinarily versatile. Experimental scores are at once
503
+
structuring and borderless; they are often conceptually
504
+
specific yet emancipating for participants. As noted above,
505
+
scores have helped artists shift their focus from the
506
+
composition of finished works to the invention of
507
+
experimental processes. They have encouraged audiences
508
+
to move beyond passive reception to active interpretation,
509
+
and in some cases direct participation. As a result, artistic
510
+
practices have become a space to think without specific
511
+
goals, to question without resolution, and to act without
512
+
foreknowledge of an outcome. In these ways, scores have
513
+
facilitated valuable and enduring processes for advancing
514
+
experimental art.
515
+
516
+
517
+
Music, Scores, and Indeterminacy
518
+
519
+
Tracing the word score back to its origins in Old English, we
520
+
discover that it denotes an inscription, a mark, or a tally.5
521
+
The historical meaning of the term is apt for describing how
522
+
notation relates to music. A score is a media device, a visual
523
+
inscription of music in graphic space, on clay tablets, with
524
+
pigment, or by way of engraving or printing. It encodes, and
525
+
thus transforms, dynamic musical time into a visible set of
526
+
instructions for its performance. To be sure, score has since
527
+
acquired a much more specific meaning. Since the early part
528
+
of the eighteenth century, the terms score and musical score
529
+
derive from the “scoring” of long bar lines down multiple
530
+
staves.6 The modern English usage of the word most
531
+
commonly refers to a single authoritative notation that
532
+
includes all the individual parts of a complete musical work.
533
+
534
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 9
535
+
Musical notation has not always been associated
536
+
with the preservation of an elaborate musical form. As was
537
+
the case for the technology of writing in Plato’s dialogue
538
+
Phaedrus (ca. 370 BCE), the purpose of musical notation
539
+
was, more practically, to supplement the powers of musical
540
+
memory.7 Thus, it is important to note that even with the aid
541
+
of musical notation, a great deal still had to be remembered
542
+
or reconstructed by the performer. Most musical notation
543
+
systems from throughout world history are a form of
544
+
shorthand with only skeletal information about what is to be
545
+
performed. For example, extant cuneiform script from
546
+
Sumer circa 1400 BCE includes the names of strings and
547
+
fragments of a melody; Ancient Greek notation since the
548
+
sixth century BCE has symbols that indicate general melodic
549
+
shapes over sung text; and there is evidence that Ancient
550
+
Chinese musicians used solmization systems (in which
551
+
pitches of the scale are assigned syllables, as in the solfège
552
+
method in Western music) as early as the fifth century BCE
553
+
and developed tablature notation around the sixth or seventh
554
+
century CE. What we now recognize as modern Western
555
+
notation developed out of medieval neumatic notation that
556
+
initially suggested only melodic contours corresponding to a
557
+
series of sung syllables rather than specific pitches or
558
+
rhythms. This neumatic notation emerged in Western Europe
559
+
in the ninth century CE and likely had origins in the Byzantine
560
+
Empire. The gradual emergence of conventional Western
561
+
musical notation—with its increasingly specific rhythms and
562
+
pitches—took place over several centuries. Its dissemination
563
+
and standardization were strongly intertwined with the
564
+
emergence of the printing press, the attendant commercial
565
+
sphere of music publishing, and the extractive and
566
+
expansionist processes of Western colonialism and
567
+
imperialism.8
568
+
But standardization, discursive power, and
569
+
geographic diffusion over time does not mean that what is
570
+
now recognized as Western musical notation became
571
+
universal, nor should we accept uncritically the traditional
572
+
573
+
10 Introduction
574
+
narratives claiming that musical notation has become more
575
+
detailed and prescriptive, and thus improved, over time.9 An
576
+
astounding variety of notation systems based in solmization,
577
+
neumatic chant, or instrumental tablature have been in use
578
+
across Asia since the earliest ancient cultures. In early
579
+
modern Europe, the guidelines to improvisation found in
580
+
figured bass notation and partimento composition required
581
+
considerable know-how beyond the specifications in the
582
+
score. Moreover, since the development of the modern
583
+
music industry in the early part of the twentieth century, a
584
+
wide range of musical notations—from detailed to
585
+
shorthand—have functioned harmoniously alongside one
586
+
another.
587
+
In fact, what appeared so radically “indeterminate”
588
+
for avant-garde composers during the 1950s was
589
+
commonplace for a significant number of musicians outside
590
+
the world of classical music. Much modern musical notation
591
+
is often quite skeletal, either giving performers considerable
592
+
freedoms or simply relying on their well-developed tacit
593
+
knowledge and idiomatic performance practices. This
594
+
characterization includes the use of lead sheets in jazz,
595
+
chord charts in popular music, and certain forms of tablature
596
+
(fig. 0.1). Depending on varying priorities for performance,
597
+
each system indicates different elements, whether chord
598
+
names, numbers that outline the harmonic voicing, notation
599
+
of key rhythmic patterns, or, in the case of tablature, the
600
+
physical position of the fingers.
601
+
Note as well that whereas chord charts and lead
602
+
sheets are notation systems that have the weight of
603
+
publishing industries behind them, the Nashville Number
604
+
System (see fig. 0.1, bottom left) is one example of the ways
605
+
musicians themselves, including those from a multitude of
606
+
cultural traditions, make all manner of informal notations for
607
+
their own use. Musicians in any number of traditions
608
+
worldwide jot down basic chord charts, lyric sheets, and
609
+
production notes; they number frets, develop homemade
610
+
tablatures, and fill notebooks and smartphones with
611
+
612
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 11
613
+
Fig. 0.1a–d Four “indeterminate” notations. Left to right: (a) Chord chart
614
+
notation for guitar; (b) Henry Purcell, “Dido’s Lament” from Dido and
615
+
Aeneas in figured bass notation, ca. 1968; (c) Hymn tune for the text
616
+
“Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” (1758) by Robert Robinson in
617
+
Nashville number system notation, nineteenth century; and (d) Thelonious
618
+
Monk, Off Minor in lead sheet notation, 1947. © 1947 (Renewed) by
619
+
Embassy Music Corporation (BMI), International Copyright Secured. All
620
+
Rights Reserved, Reprinted by permission of Hal Leonard LLC ©; Courtesy of
621
+
Jonathan K. Riggs.
622
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/001/
623
+
624
+
625
+
626
+
627
+
12 Introduction
628
+
annotations about settings for buttons, knobs, and sliders on
629
+
electronic instruments. In all instances, written aids, social
630
+
conventions, memory, and oral tradition play a role in the
631
+
production of the musical result.
632
+
By contrast, the musicians and artists featured in
633
+
several chapters of The Scores Project—namely David
634
+
Tudor, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Sylvano Bussotti,
635
+
Benjamin Patterson, and La Monte Young—were all trained
636
+
in the comparatively rigid twentieth-century practice of
637
+
classical music performance that had its origins in a
638
+
nineteenth-century European concept of the musical work.
639
+
Examining this tradition, the philosopher Lydia Goehr has
640
+
elaborated on the contours of the “work concept,” in which a
641
+
score determines all the notes in a composition and remains
642
+
a regulative ideal toward which each performance aspires.10
643
+
Historically, the work concept required (1) a strong author-
644
+
function for composers (akin to the auteur model in cinema);
645
+
(2) a highly conventionalized notation system; and (3) a
646
+
norm-bound discipline of musical performance. By
647
+
midcentury, the world of classical music, with its cultural
648
+
prestige rising, had all three in spades.
649
+
It was within this conservative musical context that
650
+
Cage and his circle dissented.11 In doing so, they followed
651
+
the lead of an earlier generation of avant-gardists. The Italian
652
+
Futurist Luigi Russolo, in his manifesto L’arte dei Rumori
653
+
(1913; The Art of Noises), had sharply criticized the classical
654
+
music tradition as “dripping with boredom stemming from
655
+
familiarity,” while venerating industrial noise as worthy of
656
+
aesthetic appreciation.12 Russolo also devised an early form
657
+
of graphic notation for a work titled Risveglio di una Città
658
+
(1914; Awakening of a City) that featured glissandi over
659
+
unspecified pitches that were to be played on intonarumori,
660
+
his custom-built mechanical noisemakers (fig. 0.2).13
661
+
Noisy and dissonant music had become a trend early
662
+
in the twentieth century, often inspiring unconventional or
663
+
surprisingly complex notations. In the United States, Charles
664
+
Ives and Leo Ornstein had been pioneers in the use of
665
+
666
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 13
667
+
Fig. 0.2 Luigi Russolo (Italian, 1855–1947). Risveglio di una Cittá
668
+
(Awakening of a City). From Lacerba 2, no. 5 (1914): 72. Getty Research
669
+
Institute, Jean Brown Collection, item 86-S1483.
670
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/002/
671
+
672
+
673
+
674
+
675
+
14 Introduction
676
+
dissonance, tone clusters, and polyrhythms. At the center of
677
+
an American scene of so-called ultra-modernists in the
678
+
1920s, Henry Cowell devised customized notations for tone
679
+
clusters (1917), complex rhythms (1917), and strumming
680
+
inside the piano (1925), all key elements of his novel
681
+
approach to composition, which he published in his
682
+
influential compendium New Musical Resources (1930).14
683
+
During the 1920s and ’30s, Edgard Varèse achieved fame for
684
+
his bracing and aggressive compositions that foregrounded
685
+
percussion, timbre, and the use of a siren in forms of what he
686
+
described as “organized sound.”15 Russolo, Cowell, and
687
+
Varèse, along with Arnold Schoenberg (with whom Cage
688
+
studied from 1935 to 1936), would prove to be significant
689
+
musical influences on Cage.16
690
+
An expanded musical palette of noise and sound, an
691
+
interest in unusual notations, a sense that advanced art
692
+
ought to be challenging to aesthetic norms, and (for Cowell,
693
+
Varèse, and many others) Asian and other non-Western
694
+
influences as exoticized correctives to a Euro-Western
695
+
status quo: these represented some of the values and
696
+
priorities of the early twentieth-century musical avant-
697
+
garde. One could argue that in their postwar work Cage and
698
+
his cohort managed to translate these priorities into a
699
+
pronounced level of philosophical self-consciousness, one
700
+
they began to convey to an increasingly large public
701
+
audience during the 1950s and ’60s through performances,
702
+
print media, teaching, recordings, and television broadcasts.
703
+
Cage’s iconoclastic modernism, exemplified not only by his
704
+
use of indeterminate notation but also by his novel embrace
705
+
of chance procedures derived from the I Ching, was also
706
+
multidisciplinary from the start; the choreographer Merce
707
+
Cunningham, who began collaborating with Cage in the
708
+
early 1940s, would become his touring partner throughout
709
+
the 1950s and ’60s.
710
+
And yet Cage’s own relationship to his fellow
711
+
practitioners of indeterminacy and experimental notation
712
+
was particularly complex. His dramatic popularization of this
713
+
714
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 15
715
+
tradition of experimentalism did not, for example, enable the
716
+
composer to break entirely with conservative elements of
717
+
the historical and European past. George E. Lewis has
718
+
detailed the ways Cage’s radicalism remained bound to a
719
+
“Eurological” view of indeterminacy.17 This was particularly
720
+
evident in Cage’s distaste for jazz and abstract
721
+
expressionism, which the composer considered to be
722
+
corrupted by intuition and ego-driven conceptions of
723
+
freedom.18 In doing so, Cage, along with Feldman and
724
+
Tudor, held fast to a fairly orthodox version of modernism
725
+
insofar as their work self-consciously rejected mainstream
726
+
and Black- and Latinx-coded genres such as jazz and popular
727
+
music.19 This categorical disavowal of popular genres was,
728
+
moreover, not merely stylistic. Racial segregation of their
729
+
artistic circles was a reality: the institutions of classical
730
+
music in the 1950s were almost entirely white. In fact,
731
+
Patterson, a rare Black artist in Cage’s circle of the early
732
+
1960s, was denied employment as an orchestral musician in
733
+
the late 1950s because of his race.20 At the level of genre,
734
+
the actual segregation of audiences and performers scaled
735
+
upward to discursive and social norms as well; Ornette
736
+
Coleman remarked that his experiments involving novel
737
+
combinations of notation and improvisation failed to
738
+
dislodge the persistent sense that classical music was
739
+
assumed to be white whereas jazz was coded as Black.21
740
+
While Cage openly expressed antipathy toward jazz,
741
+
other modernists of the period idealized and prized its
742
+
powers, albeit in ways that are complex in their own right.
743
+
Certainly among Black artists themselves, the emergence of
744
+
jazz was understood as integral to the literature and art of the
745
+
Harlem Renaissance. Among white artists in Europe,
746
+
however, ambivalent and fetishistic attachment to Black
747
+
culture was widespread during the 1910s and ’20s, and it is
748
+
explicit in the work of composers such as Claude Debussy,
749
+
Maurice Ravel, and Darius Milhaud, and in modernist avant-
750
+
garde movements including Futurism, cubism, sound poetry,
751
+
and Surrealism.22 Among the composers engaging with
752
+
753
+
16 Introduction
754
+
experimental scores in the 1950s, Earle Brown had a
755
+
pronounced interest in improvisation that stemmed from his
756
+
background in jazz and popular music.23 Brown’s iconic
757
+
experimental score, December 1952 (1952), widely credited
758
+
as an early exemplar of graphic notation, is notoriously
759
+
indeterminate: It has no bar lines or axis indicating the
760
+
passage of time, and it can be read with the score positioned
761
+
in any direction (fig. 0.3). His open-form scores, many of
762
+
which accommodated improvisation, were inspired not only
763
+
by his experience with jazz but also by abstract expressionist
764
+
painting, the mobile sculptures of Alexander Calder, and the
765
+
mathematical tools of Joseph Schillinger’s system of
766
+
musical composition.
767
+
Amid these variously conflictual and contradictory
768
+
attitudes toward improvisation, Lewis underscores a simple
769
+
historical fact: modernist engagements with indeterminacy
770
+
already had a strong track record among Black musicians
771
+
well before 1960, even if this antecedent was rarely
772
+
acknowledged—and was, moreover, often maligned—by
773
+
Cage himself. Blues People (1963) by Amiri Baraka (then
774
+
known as LeRoi Jones) offers a rich account of bebop, an
775
+
Afro-modernist revolution in musical form developed
776
+
throughout the 1940s and ’50s by Black musicians such as
777
+
Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, and Dizzy Gillespie.24
778
+
Bebop musicians, in fracturing and redeveloping many of the
779
+
entertainment conventions of the swing era of jazz, shared
780
+
the Euro-modernist desire to use dissonance,
781
+
experimentation, and indeterminacy in ways that “posed
782
+
potent challenges to Western notions of structure, form, and
783
+
expression.”25 Bebop was distinct, however, not only for its
784
+
weave of harmonically complex lead sheets and intricate
785
+
improvisations but also for its associations with a resistant
786
+
social mission that sought to contest racist prejudices and
787
+
empower Black artists toward social and economic
788
+
advancement. Cage’s near-opposite commitment, in the
789
+
1950s, to performative “discipline” (rather than
790
+
improvisation) was likewise indifferent to Afro-modernist
791
+
792
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 17
793
+
Fig. 0.3 Earle Brown (American, 1926–2002). Score for December 1952.
794
+
From Folio and 4 Systems, 1952. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor
795
+
Papers, 980039, box 170, folder 1. Earle Brown Estate.
796
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/301/
797
+
798
+
799
+
800
+
801
+
18 Introduction
802
+
social causes. As someone who was, in his own words, no
803
+
fan of social protest, Cage tended to associate himself with a
804
+
quiescent anarchic libertarianism. And by prioritizing the
805
+
whiteness of “classical” composition alongside an
806
+
exoticized fascination with Asian philosophy and Chinese
807
+
calligraphy, he placed exceptional value on the design and
808
+
script of printed scores, while casting the improvisational
809
+
“freedoms” of Afro-modernist jazz as a disavowed other.
810
+
Yet, across the three opening chapters of The Scores
811
+
Project, readers will find that the distinctions between
812
+
improvisation and indeterminacy, or between personal
813
+
expression and formalist discipline, overlap a great deal
814
+
when examining—and listening to—Tudor’s practice at a
815
+
granular level. A score like Feldman’s Intersection 3 (1953),
816
+
as introduced by Gallope in chapter 1, is formalist by design
817
+
and in visual appearance, but it was intuitively written and is
818
+
often frenetic, even jarring, in its acoustic effect, redolent of
819
+
the French poet and theater director Antonin Artaud’s
820
+
celebration of extreme physicality in performance. Cage’s
821
+
visually stunning compendium of notations in his Concert for
822
+
Piano and Orchestra (1958), discussed by Gallope and
823
+
Nancy Perloff in chapter 2, was made according to the
824
+
careful ego-attenuating formalism of chance procedures;
825
+
however, Tudor’s realizations, similarly evoking Artaud in
826
+
their moments of menacing atonality and abstraction, reveal
827
+
intriguing personal choices and expressive flair more familiar
828
+
to nineteenth-century ideals of pianistic virtuosity. Finally,
829
+
Bussotti’s expressivist and highly calligraphic score for Five
830
+
Piano Pieces for David Tudor (1959), discussed by Gallope in
831
+
chapter 3, appears visually gestural but explicitly blurs the
832
+
line between improvisation and indeterminacy altogether,
833
+
leaving its performer in a position to construct a realization in
834
+
a more careful and formalist Cagean manner.
835
+
In the 1960s and ’70s, techniques and procedures
836
+
involving indeterminacy, improvisation, iterability, and
837
+
chance—all variously associated with experimental scores—
838
+
were mixed, matched, and reworked in innumerable ways by
839
+
840
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 19
841
+
an ever-broadening circle of musicians and artists. Two
842
+
compendia published during the 1960s, La Monte Young and
843
+
Jackson Mac Low’s An Anthology of Chance Operations
844
+
(1962–63) and Cage and Alison Knowles’s Notations
845
+
(1969), along with the influential journal Source: Music of
846
+
the Avant-Garde (1967–73), helped draw attention to this
847
+
range of work as it developed throughout the decade.26 In
848
+
the wake of Tudor’s many legendary performances of the
849
+
1950s, Neo-Dada artists including George Brecht, Philip
850
+
Corner, Dick Higgins, Toshi Ichiyanagi, Terry Jennings, Mac
851
+
Low, Pauline Oliveros, and Young wrote experimental scores
852
+
for him as a pianist—many featuring only text—as if Tudor
853
+
were a medium for experimentation in and of himself. Soon
854
+
after, Tudor’s work evolved away from realizations at the
855
+
piano and toward improvisation and live electronics at a time
856
+
of exceptionally high touring activity with Cage and the
857
+
Merce Cunningham Dance Company in the 1960s and
858
+
’70s.27
859
+
During the 1960s, score experimentation among
860
+
musicians continued apace without Tudor. The inventive
861
+
linear design of Cornelius Cardew’s Treatise (1963–67)
862
+
became famous in its own right, in part for being highly
863
+
indeterminate for performers. Cathy Berberian, renowned as
864
+
a singer with exceptional abilities in avant-garde music,
865
+
wrote a work of graphic notation exploring extended vocal
866
+
techniques titled Stripsody (1966). Also in 1960s and ’70s,
867
+
Pauline Oliveros developed orally transmitted guidelines for
868
+
communal experiences of deep listening and sonic
869
+
meditation and published them as “prose instructions or
870
+
recipes.”28 Concurrently, the pioneering sound artist
871
+
Maryanne Amacher created experimental and conceptual
872
+
scores that explored the affordances of telephones and long-
873
+
distance media.29 And a number of Black musicians who
874
+
continued to challenge the binary division between Western
875
+
classical composition and improvised jazz forged their own
876
+
experimental notations. Anthony Braxton, straddling the
877
+
divide between composition and improvisation,
878
+
879
+
20 Introduction
880
+
experimented with graphic scores beginning in the 1970s.
881
+
The trumpeter Wadada Leo Smith, a member of the
882
+
Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians, has
883
+
more recently developed an exceptionally colorful and
884
+
imaginative notational language imbued with personal
885
+
cosmology called Ankhrasmation, examples of which have
886
+
been exhibited as art (fig. 0.4).
887
+
888
+
889
+
Scoring Intermedia
890
+
891
+
It would be misleading, of course, to suggest that the
892
+
postwar fascination with experimental scores was owed
893
+
entirely to the work of musicians. In the first decades of the
894
+
twentieth century, artists, poets, and performers associated
895
+
with the avant-garde movements of Futurism, Dada, and
896
+
Surrealism originating in Europe crafted their own
897
+
experimental notations, many of which made only glancing
898
+
reference to musical traditions. These artists made novel use
899
+
of score-like forms: instructions, explanatory notes,
900
+
diagrams, poetry intended for performance, and even
901
+
invitations directed at potential participants among
902
+
unsuspecting publics. Many of these innovations would
903
+
prove influential to postwar developments in avant-garde
904
+
performance art, conceptualism, and intermedia.
905
+
Dada notations were emblematic and perhaps the
906
+
most notorious. Dada artists, internationally networked
907
+
across the cities of Zürich, Cologne, Hanover, Berlin, Paris,
908
+
and New York (many as émigrés), experimented widely
909
+
across the domains of collage, graphics, poetry, and
910
+
sculpture. Their aesthetic strategies aimed to dethrone the
911
+
powers of reason, disrupt the authority of individual
912
+
expression, and stage a mockery of bourgeois cultural
913
+
values.30 Crucially, their creative protests against the
914
+
“achievements” of modernism unfolded against the
915
+
backdrop of World War I.
916
+
Some Dada experiments were explicitly score-like:
917
+
Marcel Duchamp’s Erratum Musical (1913) is a musical
918
+
919
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 21
920
+
Fig. 0.4 Wadada Leo Smith (American, b. 1941). The Dream, a panel from
921
+
Kosmic Music (The Ankhrasmation Symbolic Language Art-Score), 2008,
922
+
acrylic and ink on paper. Wadada Leo Smith, www.wadadaleosmith.com.
923
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/004/
924
+
925
+
926
+
927
+
928
+
22 Introduction
929
+
composition for three voices ordered by individual notes that
930
+
were printed on cards and then pulled at random from a hat.
931
+
Tristan Tzara, Richard Hulsenbeck, and Marcel Janco’s
932
+
L’amiral cherche une maison à louer (1916; The admiral looks
933
+
for a house to rent) is a collage-like “simultaneous poem”
934
+
composed in orchestral fashion for three clashing voices.
935
+
Tzara’s much simpler To Make a Dadaist Poem (1920)
936
+
instructs the reader to write a poem by stringing together
937
+
individual words cut out of a newspaper and drawn
938
+
sequentially from a bag. These Dada scores questioned, if
939
+
not eschewed outright, the telos of a finished object.
940
+
Instead, they elicited audience participation, produced
941
+
variations through iteration, and decentered subjectivity in
942
+
their provocative centering of chance operations.
943
+
Other Dada artists used score-like notations to direct
944
+
participants to a written prototype or conceptual outline that
945
+
stood as an adjunct to artworks executed as physical
946
+
objects. Prominent examples include Duchamp’s notorious
947
+
readymades (arrived at in 1913) and his immense and
948
+
perplexing The Large Glass (1915–23)—a nine-foot-tall
949
+
window-like structure straddling the boundary between
950
+
painting and sculpture—whose related notes and sketches
951
+
Duchamp published in 1934 as The Green Box.31 At a
952
+
remove from the construction of actual three-dimensional
953
+
objects, fellow Dadaists Marius de Zayas and Francis Picabia
954
+
pioneered the use of diagrammatic machine drawings, or
955
+
“mechanomorphs,” that articulated skeletal forms and
956
+
prototypes more fanciful than realistic. Soon after, affiliates
957
+
of the Bureau of Surrealist Research in Paris, including André
958
+
Breton and Artaud, prepared written instructions on
959
+
gatheing participants for dream séances at which audiences
960
+
were inspired to reconsider the perceptual frames of
961
+
everyday experience.
962
+
Sound poetry, devised in the years leading up to
963
+
World War I, understood the poetic page as a format that
964
+
already functioned similarly to a musical score. Poems
965
+
composed by Russian Futurists tried to forge a
966
+
967
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 23
968
+
“transrational” language of unconscious expression (or
969
+
zaum) that could overcome linguistic and national obstacles.
970
+
Italian Futurists, for their part, made use of the sounds of the
971
+
machine age and the panicked drama of war with variously
972
+
incomprehensible or illogical constructions.32 Following the
973
+
lead of the Futurists, a number of Dada sound poets explored
974
+
novelties in graphic design to lend the recitation of words a
975
+
pronounced affective charge. Often published in
976
+
typographically inventive layouts, their poems circulated
977
+
internationally via self-published magazines such as Dada,
978
+
Merz, and 291. Prefiguring the postwar flowering of
979
+
concrete poetry, these publications radicalized the visually
980
+
inventive design of works such as Stéphane Mallarmé’s Un
981
+
coup de dés jamais n’abolira le hasard (1897; A throw of the
982
+
dice will never abolish chance) and Guillaume Apollinaire’s
983
+
Calligrammes (1913–16).33 In live performance, recitations
984
+
of sound poetry could shift back and forth between semi-
985
+
intelligible oration and raw, shockingly abstract noise as they
986
+
channeled a mix of mystical and primitivist fantasies, thus
987
+
establishing a precedent for later avant-gardists’
988
+
appropriative relationship to African and other non-Western
989
+
arts and cultures.34 Hugo Ball’s otherworldly incantations
990
+
performed at the Cabaret Voltaire in Zürich in 1916 and Kurt
991
+
Schwitters’s typographic score for Ursonate (1922–32),
992
+
which prescribes tongue-twisting vocalizations, are among
993
+
the best-known examples (figs. 0.5, 0.6).35 Refusing
994
+
traditional interpretive practices, these poems challenge the
995
+
reader’s silence while seeming to invite, if not demand, some
996
+
kind of commitment to performance.
997
+
After the dissolution of Dada in the early 1920s and
998
+
the subsequent rise and diffusion of Surrealism
999
+
internationally, a rural campus established in 1933 about
1000
+
eighteen miles east of Asheville, North Carolina, came to
1001
+
play an important role in the transmission of intermedia
1002
+
experimentation to postwar avant-gardes across the United
1003
+
States.36 It was Black Mountain College, whose faculty
1004
+
members, most famously among them the European
1005
+
1006
+
24 Introduction
1007
+
Fig. 0.5 Hugo Ball performing Karawane at the Cabaret Voltaire, Zürich,
1008
+
1916. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 1, folder
1009
+
52.
1010
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/005/
1011
+
1012
+
1013
+
1014
+
1015
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 25
1016
+
Fig. 0.6 Kurt Schwitters (German, 1887–1948). Ursonate, 1922–32.
1017
+
From Merz, no. 24 (1932): 157. Getty Research Institute, item 85-S179.
1018
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/006/
1019
+
1020
+
1021
+
1022
+
1023
+
26 Introduction
1024
+
émigrés Josef and Anni Albers, brought with them creative
1025
+
practices initially developed at the innovative and highly
1026
+
influential German Bauhaus (1913–33). In a marked
1027
+
departure from traditional art pedagogy focused on faithful
1028
+
reproduction and the acquisition of virtuosic skills, the
1029
+
Alberses’ modernist pedagogy fused the Bauhaus’s
1030
+
integrative approach to form and materials with a bespoke
1031
+
curriculum based in the progressive educational philosophy
1032
+
of John Dewey, which emphasized learning by doing in ways
1033
+
that encouraged students’ individual independence, inquiry,
1034
+
and creativity. As a means of balancing rigor and creative
1035
+
experimentation, the Alberses’ pedagogy made use of
1036
+
abstract geometric schema to examine and play with basic
1037
+
design principles and the elemental laws of form, inculcating
1038
+
in students a way of seeing and working that would translate
1039
+
across creative disciplines. As Josef Albers explained:
1040
+
1041
+
We should discover for instance that music, too, has
1042
+
to do with proportion and the values of line and
1043
+
volume; also that literature can be static and
1044
+
dynamic, and can have staccatos and crescendos,
1045
+
and poems can have color; that the play on the stage
1046
+
has not only dramatic climax but also an optical and
1047
+
an acoustical one; that there are musical qualities in
1048
+
all art—that every art work is built (i.e., composed),
1049
+
has order, consciously or unconsciously.37
1050
+
1051
+
This approach echoed the Bauhaus foundation
1052
+
courses developed by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, a
1053
+
curriculum further transmitted through midcentury English
1054
+
translations of Klee’s Pedagogical Sketchbook (1925/1953)
1055
+
and Kandinsky’s Point and Line to Plane (1926/1947), both
1056
+
of which distilled the creative process into a series of score-
1057
+
like explanatory diagrams.38 From Klee’s notion of form as a
1058
+
dynamic process (Werden, or becoming) that originates with
1059
+
a “line on a walk,” to Kandinsky’s visual translations of
1060
+
excerpts from music, dance, and architecture into
1061
+
concatenations of dots and arabesques, their influential
1062
+
1063
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 27
1064
+
theories of form imagined distinct artistic disciplines
1065
+
communicating with one another via the elemental graphic
1066
+
language of notation.39
1067
+
In the 1940s and ’50s, Black Mountain College
1068
+
became a venue for experimental intermedia and Dada
1069
+
revivalism. Josef Albers launched a summer program there
1070
+
in 1944 that welcomed a diverse array of guest artists,
1071
+
writers, composers, and designers. A soon-to-be-famous
1072
+
generation of radical pedagogues arrived in 1948, including
1073
+
Cage, Merce Cunningham, Willem and Elaine de Kooning, R.
1074
+
Buckminster Fuller, and Louise and Richard Lippold. That
1075
+
summer, Cage, Cunningham, Fuller, and Elaine de Kooning
1076
+
staged a polarizing performance of proto-Dada works by Erik
1077
+
Satie, namely his one-act play The Ruse of the Medusa
1078
+
(1913), and Cage delivered lectures that explicitly opposed
1079
+
the Germanic attachments to formal and aesthetic
1080
+
organicism so often associated with Ludwig van Beethoven.
1081
+
Though the musical notation used in Satie’s works was
1082
+
largely conventional and the Chinese influence of chance
1083
+
procedures (derived from the I Ching) was not yet a part of
1084
+
Cage’s or Cunningham’s vocabularies, the cross-disciplinary
1085
+
collaboration rejected the intellectual frameworks of
1086
+
Hegelian oppositions and organic unities in favor of
1087
+
something more absurdist and depersonalized—evocative of
1088
+
the Dada experimentation that had largely fallen out of
1089
+
fashion.
1090
+
Meanwhile, in France, the writer, performer, and
1091
+
Surrealist affiliate Antonin Artaud had been developing an
1092
+
avant-garde approach to performance in Paris throughout
1093
+
the 1920s and ’30s. His book of essays in performance
1094
+
theory, Le Théâtre et son double (1938; The Theater and Its
1095
+
Double [1958]), outlined a “Theater of Cruelty” that
1096
+
proposed to tear through the usual communicative media of
1097
+
language and representation using the blunt tool of shock,
1098
+
mobilized to dissolve the boundary between art and life and
1099
+
thereby dismantle the audience’s trusted capacities of
1100
+
perception.40 Though largely unknown in the United States
1101
+
1102
+
28 Introduction
1103
+
in his time, Artaud’s influence over the 1960s avant-garde
1104
+
would become considerable. In advocating dramatic works
1105
+
that deemphasized dialogue, Artaud argued that the
1106
+
essential building blocks of theater were not the words of a
1107
+
text but rather the physical instructions (staging, lighting,
1108
+
blocking, costuming) for performers to enact. In this manner,
1109
+
the Theater of Cruelty outlined a score-like precedent for the
1110
+
emergence of nonnarrative, materially driven performance
1111
+
art.
1112
+
The carnality of Artaud’s aesthetic impacted
1113
+
musicians with equal power. An unhinged reading Artaud
1114
+
delivered in 1947 caught the attention of the French
1115
+
composer Pierre Boulez, who would proclaim a year later,
1116
+
when he published his brutally noisy Second Sonata (1948),
1117
+
that “music should be collective hysteria and magic,
1118
+
violently modern—along the lines of Antonin Artaud.”41
1119
+
During the summer of 1949 in Paris, Cage met Boulez and
1120
+
was electrified and impressed by the extreme dissonance of
1121
+
the Second Sonata. Through Boulez, he became acquainted
1122
+
with Artaud’s work. The subsequent winter, Cage
1123
+
approached Tudor and asked the pianist if he could handle
1124
+
the American premiere of Boulez’s sonata. In preparing the
1125
+
fiendishly difficult score for a premiere in December of 1950,
1126
+
Tudor in turn learned of Artaud’s importance to Boulez and
1127
+
taught himself French in order to read Artaud’s writings.42
1128
+
By 1951, Tudor had met and fallen in love with the poet and
1129
+
year-round Black Mountain faculty member M. C. Richards,
1130
+
and he shared with her typescripts of Artaud’s work. That
1131
+
fall, Cage, Tudor, and Richards were all reading Artaud, and
1132
+
Cage’s music shifted dramatically from relatively consonant
1133
+
Satie-like meditations into a brutal atonality dictated by
1134
+
chance procedures.43 Meanwhile, Richards herself began
1135
+
work on an English translation of Artaud’s The Theater and
1136
+
Its Double.
1137
+
Amid recurring conversations about Artaud, Cage
1138
+
returned to Black Mountain in the summer of 1952 with
1139
+
Cunningham, Tudor, and Richards.44 Having that spring
1140
+
1141
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 29
1142
+
written the score for an experimental theater piece, Water
1143
+
Music (1952), Cage sketched (reportedly in a single
1144
+
afternoon) the score for what is now recognized as the first
1145
+
“happening.” What came to be known as Theater Piece No.
1146
+
1 (1952) was conceived by Cage as a series of time brackets
1147
+
to be filled by the undetermined activities of its participants:
1148
+
Tudor, Cunningham, Richards, the poet Charles Olson, and
1149
+
the artist Robert Rauschenberg. Though a culture of
1150
+
intermedia collaboration was already established at Black
1151
+
Mountain, Theater Piece No. 1 broke new ground in terms of
1152
+
its disordered, highly indeterminate, and unrehearsed,
1153
+
collage-like atmosphere.45 The audience was small (fewer
1154
+
than fifty people), but the event became legendary: It
1155
+
disoriented its audience by providing an aleatoric experience
1156
+
that combined dance, recorded music, spoken poetry,
1157
+
projected images, and Rauschenberg’s White Paintings
1158
+
(1951) suspended from the ceiling.46 Its intermixing of art
1159
+
forms addressed to the ears and the eyes sought to eliminate
1160
+
the boundaries between the sonic and the visual. Later that
1161
+
summer, in Woodstock, New York, Tudor premiered Cage’s
1162
+
famous silent piece, 4′33″ (1952), a union of indeterminate
1163
+
notation and the readymade that likewise pointed to the
1164
+
ways in which the performance of music contains its own
1165
+
sense of theatricality.
1166
+
Though Theater Piece No. 1 and 4′33″ were
1167
+
important antecedents for the rise of so-called Neo-Dada
1168
+
after 1960, the renewed interest in Dada’s spirit of negation
1169
+
and the embrace of nontraditional materials had other
1170
+
advocates in the years after the movement’s initial
1171
+
flourishing from 1916 to 1924.47 In 1936, Alfred H. Barr of
1172
+
the Museum of Modern Art curated the exhibition Fantastic
1173
+
Art, Dada, Surrealism, whose exhibition catalog featured a
1174
+
short essay on Dada that remained one of very few English-
1175
+
language sources on the movement until the late 1940s. By
1176
+
then, the abstract expressionist Robert Motherwell, also a
1177
+
member of the summer faculty at Black Mountain, had
1178
+
begun to independently investigate Dada as an antecedent
1179
+
1180
+
30 Introduction
1181
+
to the better-known work of the Surrealists.48 His research
1182
+
culminated in the first retrospective canonization of Dada as
1183
+
a movement, The Dada Painters and Poets (1951), a
1184
+
publication of primary sources that revitalized interest in
1185
+
Dada in the postwar period. Two years later, a Dada
1186
+
exhibition organized at New York’s Sidney Janis Gallery by
1187
+
Marcel Duchamp himself further contributed to Dada’s
1188
+
renewed notoriety.49 Broadly speaking, among American
1189
+
avant-gardes of the postwar period, Dada’s anti-illusionistic,
1190
+
anti-egoic approaches to collage, chance, and the
1191
+
readymade held a unique and powerful appeal by
1192
+
comparison with the automatism and dream imagery of
1193
+
Surrealism, which remained attached to the dictates of the
1194
+
unconscious ego and the aesthetics of figurative
1195
+
representation in ways that facilitated its vulgar
1196
+
popularization and commercialization, especially in the U.S.
1197
+
context.50
1198
+
Cage’s aforementioned course in experimental
1199
+
composition at the New School, which took place from 1956
1200
+
through 1959, carved out an inspiring space for a new
1201
+
generation of visual and performing artists to begin
1202
+
composing experimental scores. He introduced Black
1203
+
Mountain–inspired pedagogy and the negative aesthetics of
1204
+
the avant-garde to a cohort of emerging figures—including
1205
+
George Brecht, Al Hansen, Dick Higgins, and Allan Kaprow,
1206
+
among others—who would go on to become the
1207
+
protagonists of happenings and Fluxus.51 Many of Cage’s
1208
+
best-known students came to the course from nonmusical
1209
+
backgrounds and were interested in developing general
1210
+
methods for experimental composition beyond the domain
1211
+
of music. In response to Cage’s assignments, they
1212
+
composed graphic and text-based scores and collectively
1213
+
performed them using everyday materials and dime-store
1214
+
objects, many of which were purchased on the way to class.
1215
+
Unburdened by traditional approaches to music theory and
1216
+
composition, the workshop-like environment encouraged in
1217
+
its participants a generative, boundary-expanding
1218
+
1219
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 31
1220
+
disposition and collaborative spirit. The artists nurtured
1221
+
there came to prize a generous yet rigorous attitude toward
1222
+
shared experimentation, an appreciation of the aesthetic
1223
+
value of everyday objects and gestures, a heightened
1224
+
sensitivity to consciousness rooted in a loose admiration of
1225
+
Zen philosophy, and a commitment to concrete experience.
1226
+
This sensibility, imparted to a range of practices in the
1227
+
decade to come, opposed what leading Fluxus organizer
1228
+
George Maciunas called the “artificial abstraction of
1229
+
illusionism” characteristic of classical theater and fine
1230
+
arts.52
1231
+
As the activities of Cage’s class branched out into
1232
+
numerous independent artistic practices and idioms,
1233
+
experimental scores became an essential tool for aesthetic
1234
+
innovation after modernism. Artists associated with
1235
+
happenings and Fluxus crafted compositions using a variety
1236
+
of graphic languages, including charts and tables, freely
1237
+
drawn diagrams, and seemingly simple text-based directives
1238
+
written in an imperative tone. In their view, the score was an
1239
+
ideal format for time-based, process-oriented, and/or
1240
+
interactive art forms. In its most basic sense, the score
1241
+
orders and organizes actions and events in time; more simply
1242
+
still, it can be used to conceptually frame and thus draw
1243
+
attention to phenomena already unfolding in everyday life.
1244
+
In this new generation of avant-garde scores, the
1245
+
traditional linkages between composer, notation, performer,
1246
+
sound, and listener were reconfigured as a perpetually
1247
+
generative ontology of iterative forms. A compelling diagram
1248
+
drawn by Brecht in one of his notebooks from Cage’s class
1249
+
lays out these possible relations in the form of a star-shaped
1250
+
network (fig. 0.7). Here, the key elements of a musical
1251
+
performance are interwoven into a complex, nonhierarchical
1252
+
matrix that facilitates multidimensional experience and
1253
+
awareness. Crucially, among other notes, sketches, and
1254
+
half-completed compositions that appear in Brecht’s
1255
+
notebooks of the time, this diagram does not faithfully refer
1256
+
to Cage’s particular ideas. In fact, knowledge transmission
1257
+
1258
+
32 Introduction
1259
+
in Cage’s classroom was not one-way. Even as he imparted
1260
+
emerging developments in composition to his students, he
1261
+
solicited feedback from them on his own works in progress
1262
+
and as he informed them about ongoing debates among his
1263
+
peers, fostering an environment of dynamic interchange.53
1264
+
The text-based compositions in gnomic prose
1265
+
pioneered by Brecht, Young, and Yoko Ono around 1960
1266
+
would become the most widespread genre of notation
1267
+
among Fluxus artists in particular.54 Such pieces were
1268
+
known after Brecht’s appellation as “event scores,” a term
1269
+
that acknowledged their utility akin to musical notation but
1270
+
in an expanded sense—specifically embracing materials
1271
+
beyond sound. Complementing Brecht’s, Young’s, and
1272
+
Ono’s text-based event scores were other visually divergent
1273
+
approaches, such as the wonkily vectored diagrams of
1274
+
Higgins’s Graphis series, begun in 1958, and Maciunas’s
1275
+
parodically rigorous charts and tables. The impact of this
1276
+
work was further reinforced by the activities of the far-flung
1277
+
network of itinerant Fluxus artists who disseminated their
1278
+
score-based works via touring performances and direct
1279
+
mailings beginning in 1962. As a performer, Tudor continued
1280
+
to play a central role in the dissemination of these notational
1281
+
experiments throughout this early period, receiving dozens
1282
+
of text-based scores written and/or dedicated to him from
1283
+
composers and artists around the world. Cage and Tudor
1284
+
expanded their reach outside the United States and provoked
1285
+
the avant-garde art and music ecologies of various
1286
+
international locales by giving concerts and lectures across
1287
+
Europe beginning in the late 1950s. In 1962 they continued
1288
+
this work on a trip to Japan that was arranged with the help
1289
+
of composer Toshi Ichiyanagi. In this rapidly evolving culture
1290
+
of the event score, works were written for, dedicated to, and
1291
+
sent to an intimate yet widely dispersed scene of knowing
1292
+
avant-garde artists and performers.
1293
+
It is crucial to note, however, that the radicalism of
1294
+
experimental scores was not simply licensed by Cage’s
1295
+
process-oriented radicalism; these artists drew on a much
1296
+
1297
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 33
1298
+
Fig. 0.7 George Brecht (American, 1926–2008). Page of notes from John
1299
+
Cage’s course in experimental composition, July 1959. From George Brecht
1300
+
Notebooks, vol. 3, April–August 1959, ed. Dieter Daniels with
1301
+
collaboration of Hermann Braun (Cologne: Walther König, 1991), 127.
1302
+
Getty Research Institute, item 92-B17341. © 2022 Artists Rights Society
1303
+
(ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
1304
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/007/
1305
+
1306
+
1307
+
1308
+
1309
+
34 Introduction
1310
+
broader set of cultural influences in positioning the novelty
1311
+
of their work. While the postwar avant-garde’s veneration of
1312
+
the ephemeral, the ordinary, and the everyday staged a
1313
+
critique of modernist autonomy, their works also often relied
1314
+
on the unacknowledged cultural labor of those outside the
1315
+
privileged sphere of the art world. Avant-garde
1316
+
choreographers, for example, appropriated tropes from
1317
+
Black dance—from minstrelsy to vaudeville.55 Motifs lifted
1318
+
from folklore and popular culture were incorporated into
1319
+
happenings and other performance art forms to access an
1320
+
authentic sense of the “vernacular” via loosely primitivist
1321
+
stagings of rituals that were then framed by an arguably
1322
+
elitist sense of aesthetic self-consciousness. More broadly,
1323
+
Blackness and Indigeneity were taken as fetishized
1324
+
otherness through the bohemian appropriations of abstract
1325
+
expressionism and Beat poetry, both of which were
1326
+
influential to this generation of avant-garde artists. A
1327
+
number of 1960s experimentalists—namely Young, Henry
1328
+
Flynt, and John Cale—abandoned notation entirely in order
1329
+
to investigate Afro-diasporic traditions, South Asian music
1330
+
and philosophy, and other vernacular modes of
1331
+
experimentation far outside the practice of Western classical
1332
+
music. The proximity and relationships between different
1333
+
racialized milieus of this moment—many of them disavowed
1334
+
or unexpectedly intertwined—deserve greater scrutiny and
1335
+
further scholarship.56 In the dense cultural geography of
1336
+
New York’s SoHo neighborhood, for example, Maciunas’s
1337
+
Fluxus headquarters at 359 Canal Street was situated mere
1338
+
blocks from Ornette Coleman’s Artist House, a ground-floor
1339
+
performance space at 131 Prince Street that Maciunas
1340
+
helped to renovate. And among Higgins’s and Knowles’s
1341
+
lesser-known collaborators was the Black jazz singer Jeanne
1342
+
Lee, who set the works of numerous sound poets to music
1343
+
and was herself featured in the premieres of Cage’s Renga
1344
+
(1975–76) and Apartment House 1776 (1976).57 Readers
1345
+
can experience Lee’s unique contributions in audio
1346
+
1347
+
1348
+
1349
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 35
1350
+
recordings of her interpreting a Jackson Mac Low text score
1351
+
alongside the poet in chapter 7.
1352
+
The post-1960 experimental scores included in this
1353
+
publication strike a balance between the textual and the
1354
+
visual, and their interactive, multidimensional presentation
1355
+
here enables us to appreciate the attention and care paid to
1356
+
the materiality of their published formats. Benjamin
1357
+
Patterson’s Paper Piece (1960), which premiered in Cologne
1358
+
well before the official launch of Fluxus, is introduced in
1359
+
chapter 4 by George E. Lewis. Cataloging the multitude of
1360
+
sounds that Patterson discovered can be elicited from paper,
1361
+
Lewis shows the visual artist to be a pioneer of an extended
1362
+
technique for this unexpectedly musical material. The
1363
+
democratic appeal of Paper Piece’s wit, deskilled
1364
+
techniques, and spirit of curious discovery anticipates
1365
+
affective qualities that would characterize many later Fluxus
1366
+
event scores. Brecht’s Water Yam (1963), introduced by
1367
+
Natilee Harren in chapter 6, is a nearly complete
1368
+
compendium of his corpus of event scores, printed
1369
+
individually on card stock and housed loosely in a box.
1370
+
Among the first Fluxus publications designed and produced
1371
+
by Maciunas, its unbound format offers endless possibilities
1372
+
for exploring the fascinating interrelations between the
1373
+
scores’ conceptual propositions and enactable gestures.
1374
+
The dance notations of the choreographer and
1375
+
filmmaker Yvonne Rainer, exemplified by her sketches for
1376
+
We Shall Run (1963), provide a glimpse into the creative use
1377
+
of scores by the postmodern dance community, particularly
1378
+
affiliates of the Judson Dance Theater. As Julia Bryan-
1379
+
Wilson explains in chapter 8, Rainer used line drawings she
1380
+
called “people plans” to map the flow of bodies through
1381
+
space, and she developed a personal vocabulary of textual
1382
+
descriptions of dancerly and non-dancerly movements as a
1383
+
memory aid for herself and to instruct other performers. The
1384
+
terse, direct language with which Rainer outlines her
1385
+
choreography—almost entirely free of specialized dance
1386
+
terminology—bears similarities to the plainspoken,
1387
+
1388
+
36 Introduction
1389
+
imperative tone of many text scores of the period. Such
1390
+
unadorned language knowingly signaled her association
1391
+
with the post-Cagean milieu and befitted the counter-
1392
+
spectacular stance articulated in her powerful “No
1393
+
Manifesto” of 1965, in which she said “no” to virtuosity,
1394
+
seduction, and make-believe.58 And yet, because dance’s
1395
+
instrument is the body, capable of innumerably varied,
1396
+
precise articulations, Rainer’s scores are among the most
1397
+
complex included in this publication, while also remaining
1398
+
unable to stand alone as transmitters of the work. They are
1399
+
more like personal records, adjunct to the oral transmission
1400
+
and muscle memory of authorized répétiteurs through which
1401
+
a dance conventionally travels, their charming idiosyncrasy
1402
+
a far cry from Labanotation and its aspirations to
1403
+
systematicity.59 Rainer’s diverse notations are of interest to
1404
+
us here precisely because their skeletal nature highlights the
1405
+
ineffable dimensions of embodied knowledge. By extension,
1406
+
they point to the ways in which performance practices
1407
+
persist, as Diana Taylor has argued, via ephemeral,
1408
+
interpersonally transmitted repertoire and textual archives,
1409
+
as well as digital, visual, and other means—even if, as Peggy
1410
+
Phelan notes, “performance’s only life is in the present.”60
1411
+
If the example of Rainer’s dance sketches points to
1412
+
the limitations of the score as a mechanism of inscription,
1413
+
the late 1960s saw avant-garde artists developing score-like
1414
+
documentation that opened up further possibilities for the
1415
+
score’s look and utility. In the context of The Scores Project,
1416
+
they invite us to creatively reconsider the relationships
1417
+
between works and their authors, performers, and
1418
+
audiences. Unlike other works featured here, Alison
1419
+
Knowles’s The Identical Lunch (late 1960s–early ’70s) was
1420
+
habitually “performed” before it was noticed by fellow artist
1421
+
Philip Corner and then transcribed into a readymade event
1422
+
score. As Emily Ruth Capper shows in chapter 9, Knowles
1423
+
thus transformed a convenient lunch into a communal
1424
+
project of quasi-ethnographic observation in which others
1425
+
1426
+
1427
+
1428
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 37
1429
+
were invited to revel in the changing shape of a quotidian
1430
+
ritual.61
1431
+
For her part, Mieko Shiomi’s multi-part work Spatial
1432
+
Poem (1965–75) attempted to realize the utopian promise of
1433
+
the event score format in its call for long-distance
1434
+
collaboration and openness to divergent interpretations. In
1435
+
chapter 10, Harren demonstrates that equally compelling is
1436
+
the work’s recursive structure, in which documentation of
1437
+
prior performances is enveloped into the international
1438
+
publication and recirculation of the scores themselves. In
1439
+
chapter 11, we see how Allan Kaprow devised scored
1440
+
activities that invited small groups of committed participants
1441
+
to explore a formalist approach to seemingly ordinary social
1442
+
situations. Emily Ruth Capper’s discussion of Routine
1443
+
(1973–75) emphasizes the foundational role of experimental
1444
+
pedagogy in Kaprow’s work and recounts how the artist’s
1445
+
filmed version of the activity provocatively blurs the line
1446
+
between score and documentation. Remarkably, Kaprow’s
1447
+
didactic actions recorded on film function as their own score
1448
+
that unfolds in time. Espousing a philosophical perspective
1449
+
on experimental scores, Shiomi’s Spatial Poem and
1450
+
Kaprow’s Routine move beyond a score’s two-dimensional
1451
+
paper format in ways that question the boundary between
1452
+
documentation and instruction.
1453
+
Over the course of the 1960s and into the ’70s,
1454
+
experimental scores invigorated a multitude of creative
1455
+
practices in the visual and performing arts. This
1456
+
development in turn contributed to the canonization of
1457
+
historical avant-garde precursors. A number of these artists
1458
+
who were trained in art history—Kaprow and Higgins in
1459
+
particular—worked to self-historicize and theorize their own
1460
+
experimental practices for audiences that lacked the proper
1461
+
language and knowledge to grasp the historical import of
1462
+
their work.62 The protean intermedia aesthetic philosophy
1463
+
these artists articulated attempted to reconcile and
1464
+
synthesize numerous influences: sound poetry and collage,
1465
+
Dada and Surrealism, the progressive pedagogy of Black
1466
+
1467
+
38 Introduction
1468
+
Mountain College, abstract expressionist painting, Cage and
1469
+
the New York School composers (a group consisting of
1470
+
Feldman, Cage, Tudor, Brown, and Christian Wolff), and the
1471
+
newly emergent culture of mass media.63 During the 1960s,
1472
+
Fluxus artists effectively redefined the meaning of
1473
+
Duchamp’s readymade to include not only objects but also
1474
+
gestures, sounds, and events. From this perspective, event
1475
+
scores were understood as “temporal readymades” that
1476
+
could appropriate and anoint ephemeral phenomena as
1477
+
aesthetically significant.64 Their notations became a
1478
+
remarkably powerful tool in transforming the artwork from
1479
+
an inert object into a wildly transmutable idea capable of
1480
+
migrating through any medium imaginable. As Higgins
1481
+
summarily concluded in his “Exemplativist Manifesto”
1482
+
(1976) with a grand gesture redolent of Jacques Derrida’s
1483
+
concept of grammatology: “All form is a process of
1484
+
notation.”65
1485
+
Other artists keen on gaining a historical awareness
1486
+
of and thereby legitimating new intermedia art forms
1487
+
produced maps, flowcharts, and timelines detailing their
1488
+
avant-garde lineages. Alongside Maciunas’s better-known
1489
+
historiographic diagrams, Nam June Paik’s “Expanded
1490
+
Education for the Paperless Society” (1968) included a
1491
+
flowchart representing the history of musical notation as an
1492
+
antecedent to what he called “Music Graphic” (the graphic
1493
+
notation of something like Cage’s Concert for Piano and
1494
+
Orchestra), “event and action music” (event scores by
1495
+
Brecht et al.), and ultimately an ethnographic “mix media
1496
+
music” (visually compelling, multisensory performance
1497
+
including opera as well as “all non-European music”) (fig.
1498
+
0.8).66 Notably, Paik’s chart is part of a manifesto arguing
1499
+
the urgent need for integrating multimedia technology into
1500
+
arts pedagogy—precisely what The Scores Project seeks to
1501
+
realize. In fact, it can be argued that the proliferation of
1502
+
scores in the 1960s fittingly paralleled early histories of
1503
+
computing and cybernetic theory. As a quasi-algorithmic
1504
+
conceptual tool, scores were a handily adaptable format for
1505
+
1506
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 39
1507
+
playing with textual and diagrammatic codes and linkages.
1508
+
Others ushered the score into the terrain of social utopias. In
1509
+
1969, Lawrence Halprin, the visionary landscape architect
1510
+
and partner to the postmodern dance pioneer Anna Halprin,
1511
+
published The RSVP Cycles, attesting to the creative power
1512
+
of scores understood in the broadest possible sense, from
1513
+
ancient mandalas and topographical maps to grocery lists
1514
+
and recipes.67 In its capaciousness, Lawrence Halprin’s
1515
+
catalog represents a distinct peak of the period’s mania for
1516
+
scores as it begs the question of what graphic inscriptions, if
1517
+
any, do not qualify as being score-like.
1518
+
Ultimately, visual and performance artists’ embrace
1519
+
of scores as a generative tool was as consequential for the
1520
+
period of transition from modernism to postmodernism as
1521
+
was minimalism’s activation of the space of the beholder
1522
+
and pop art’s intermingling of high art with the low culture of
1523
+
mass media.68 In the years since, artists have continued to
1524
+
make use of all sorts of notations—from scores, diagrams,
1525
+
and instructions to certificates, blueprints, drawings, and
1526
+
the like—though with some sense that the once
1527
+
revolutionary challenges to authority, autography, and
1528
+
polished works in favor of iterative, experimental, and open-
1529
+
ended practices have become accepted, even routine
1530
+
directions for contemporary artists. Meanwhile, for scholars
1531
+
and curators, the recognition of the importance of
1532
+
experimental scores has inspired renewed debates around
1533
+
the ontology, preservation, and, ironically, authenticity of
1534
+
ephemeral works of art in ways that knit together such
1535
+
diverse fields of inquiry as aesthetics, patronage, museum
1536
+
studies, conservation, and intellectual property law.
1537
+
1538
+
1539
+
Poetry and Experimental Scores
1540
+
1541
+
Language-based directives were certainly one of the
1542
+
hallmark features of the expanded forms in which
1543
+
experimental scores were composed and distributed after
1544
+
1960. Nevertheless, from a historical perspective, it is
1545
+
1546
+
40 Introduction
1547
+
Fig. 0.8 Nam June Paik (Korean, 1932–2006). “Expanded Education for
1548
+
the Paperless Society,” 1968. Reproduced in Radical Software 1, no. 1
1549
+
(1970): 7–8. © Nam June Paik Estate.
1550
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/008/
1551
+
1552
+
1553
+
1554
+
1555
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 41
1556
+
remarkable to note that self-described poets were largely on
1557
+
the periphery of these aesthetic innovations. In France, at
1558
+
least one sympathetic tradition of poets operated in parallel
1559
+
to Cage and his circle. Disaffection with the increasingly
1560
+
doctrinaire strictures of Bretonian Surrealism led to the
1561
+
founding in 1948 of the Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle
1562
+
(Oulipo). Though their work was not popularized in the
1563
+
United States until the 1960s, Oulipo’s emphasis on the
1564
+
creation of potential literature—that is, the invention of
1565
+
procedures or constraints that could be employed to
1566
+
generate actual, finished literary works—presents us with a
1567
+
literary analogue to the score-based experiments featured in
1568
+
The Scores Project. This parallel notwithstanding, the avant-
1569
+
garde poets of the postwar era who did interact most directly
1570
+
with Cage and his circle’s score-based experiments in the
1571
+
early 1950s, namely Charles Olson, M. C. Richards, and
1572
+
Jackson Mac Low, had a subtler, more indirect relationship
1573
+
to a broader history of score-like experimentation in Western
1574
+
poetry, a relationship that requires a bit of historical context.
1575
+
Long before any modernist or avant-garde poetry,
1576
+
there was a common sense that the text of a written poem
1577
+
was analogous to a score. From the dawn of print culture up
1578
+
until the early twentieth century in the West, it was assumed
1579
+
that printed poems would be read aloud in the presence of
1580
+
others—and thus performed in a score-like fashion—so as to
1581
+
retain a sensory link to ubiquitous traditions of oral literature
1582
+
and folklore. This history of performing poetry in print allows
1583
+
us to better understand how the changing conceptions of
1584
+
prosody, orality, and the phenomenology of poetic rhythm
1585
+
paralleled cross-disciplinary score-based work in the other
1586
+
arts. Before the emergence of mass media, the expressive
1587
+
recitation of literary works was a prime source of communal
1588
+
entertainment for primarily middle-class audiences, much
1589
+
like amateur performances of musical scores. In England and
1590
+
the United States, the recitation of poetry was the focus of
1591
+
enunciation contests that were widespread in the late
1592
+
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and these contests
1593
+
1594
+
42 Introduction
1595
+
in turn were evidence of a vigorous debate over the proper
1596
+
pronunciation and rhythms of English speech. In a move that
1597
+
parallels the nineteenth-century emergence of parlor song
1598
+
and Christian hymnals intended for middle-class amateur
1599
+
musicians, participants in these disputes assumed that such
1600
+
performances of literary works ought to be achievable by any
1601
+
reader with sufficient literacy and education; that is, they did
1602
+
not require professional performers.69 These debates only
1603
+
intensified in the early days of radio and the phonograph, and
1604
+
the ideas were associated with an explosion of textbooks,
1605
+
manuals, and theoretical treatises on poetic meter and other
1606
+
rhythmic effects that were considered essential to the oral
1607
+
delivery of a text.
1608
+
A chief preoccupation of modern American poetry
1609
+
was the widely acknowledged “crisis of verse” / crise de vers
1610
+
that emerged from the widespread adoption of free-verse
1611
+
rhythms rather than the more regularly patterned structure
1612
+
of meter and rhyme. Some poets and critics argued that
1613
+
modern poets ought to renounce regular rhythms and other
1614
+
pleasing sonic effects of traditional versification—even to
1615
+
the point of becoming deliberately prosaic in their
1616
+
language—in order to reflect the broken or alienated
1617
+
conditions of modernity.70 Others, however, sought to
1618
+
maintain continuity between the meters of earlier eras of
1619
+
English-language poetry and the prosodic experiments that
1620
+
were quickly being embraced as canonical works of high
1621
+
modernism in the age of the New Criticism.71 The
1622
+
pedagogues concerned with proper enunciation reacted to
1623
+
the crisis of free verse in their own way. Some simply
1624
+
dismissed these new works outright as not poetry—
1625
+
conservative literary critics regularly decried any new
1626
+
experimental works either as nonsense or as being
1627
+
indistinguishable from prose—while Robert Frost infamously
1628
+
described free verse as “playing tennis with the net
1629
+
down.”72 But others rushed to amend their prosodic theories
1630
+
by explaining how free-verse poems ought to be recited and
1631
+
how attending to their oral delivery remained indispensable
1632
+
1633
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 43
1634
+
to understanding and experiencing these literary works.
1635
+
Leading up to this moment of early modernist crisis,
1636
+
the musical score and the notion of the printed text as the
1637
+
authoritative guide to oral delivery reemerged as a model for
1638
+
literary scholars. The poet Sidney Lanier, in his Science of
1639
+
English Verse (1880), had sought a unified ground for the
1640
+
rhythms of both metrical and free-verse poetry (fig. 0.9).73
1641
+
For his analyses, Lanier used musical notation in place of
1642
+
traditional scansion (derived from the foot-based prosodies
1643
+
of Greek and Latin poetry), a quirkily overdetermined
1644
+
approach emphasizing time and rhythm over accents and
1645
+
stresses on syllables that would continue to be championed
1646
+
by Harriet Monroe, the influential editor of Poetry magazine
1647
+
in the modernist era.74 Other scholars looked to
1648
+
phonographic recordings of exemplary recitations as a way
1649
+
of establishing the subtle yet perceptible regularity of free
1650
+
verse when read aloud by expert performers.75 Aided by a
1651
+
robust discourse of formalization made with reference to
1652
+
musical scores, the focus on exemplary virtuoso
1653
+
performances of poems became a means of legitimating
1654
+
modernist experimentalism.
1655
+
Meanwhile, other strains of modernism sought to
1656
+
revive the vernacular, ephemeral, and improvisational
1657
+
dimensions of oral poetry. By the 1950s, attempts to shake
1658
+
up the stale, insular, and self-congratulatory performance
1659
+
norms of the academic poetry reading were emerging from
1660
+
virtually all of the various schools of so-called New American
1661
+
Poetry, as identified in 1960 by the influential anthologist
1662
+
Donald Allen. (Members of these schools included the Beat
1663
+
poets, Black Mountain College poets, figures of the San
1664
+
Francisco Renaissance, and New York School poets.) Their
1665
+
challenges ranged from “Fresh Air” (1955), the New York
1666
+
School poet Kenneth Koch’s merciless satire of academic
1667
+
poetry culture, to the much more militant call for “poems
1668
+
that kill” from Amiri Baraka, founder of the Harlem-based
1669
+
Black Arts Repertory Theater/School.76 Midcentury poets
1670
+
seeking emancipation from the sterility of mainstream
1671
+
1672
+
44 Introduction
1673
+
Fig. 0.9 Sidney Lanier (American, 1842–81). The Science of English Verse
1674
+
(New York: Scribner’s, 1880), 216–17. Internet Archive/Trent University
1675
+
Library Donation.
1676
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/009/
1677
+
1678
+
1679
+
1680
+
1681
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 45
1682
+
recitation found models for immediacy and spontaneity in
1683
+
abstract expressionist painting, collage and assemblage,
1684
+
existentialist philosophy, psychoanalysis, jazz, the mind-
1685
+
expanding qualities of psychoactive drugs, and exoticizing
1686
+
endeavors into mysticism and spiritualism.
1687
+
In this vein, Afro-modernist bebop, newly circulating
1688
+
in recordings at midcentury, inspired many of these poets to
1689
+
actively return to a form of oral literature that was presumed
1690
+
to bypass the mediation of writing and reach audiences more
1691
+
directly. The improvisational performances of Beat poets,
1692
+
which often entailed similarly improvised musical
1693
+
accompaniment and were occasionally distributed as audio
1694
+
recordings, further emphasized performance at the expense
1695
+
of a purely textualist concept of the literary work. Their
1696
+
innovations would in turn become a formidable influence on
1697
+
the musicians and poets who infused the spoken word into
1698
+
free jazz, the 1960s folk revival, rock music, and the New
1699
+
York punk movement of the 1970s. The work of Gil Scott-
1700
+
Heron and Patti Smith stands out as perhaps the best known
1701
+
and most direct channeling of the sensory immediacy of oral
1702
+
delivery into an incantation driven by the hypnotic intensity
1703
+
of jazz, blues, soul, and—for Smith—rock. Echoing elements
1704
+
of Scott-Heron’s innovations, hip-hop artists, particularly in
1705
+
the wake of the genre’s flowering in the 1990s, would even
1706
+
more radically return to the powers of prosody and voice to
1707
+
assert a performance-driven model of poetic expression.
1708
+
Of course, these musician-poets were not
1709
+
necessarily interested in experimental scores; they were
1710
+
more directly turning to forms of oral transmission joined to
1711
+
the affective impact of music. Others retooled the formalist
1712
+
study of meter and prosody in ways that explicitly made use
1713
+
of experimental scores that presented temporal performance
1714
+
instructions in inventive visual layouts.77 In a formalist vein,
1715
+
Charles Olson reimagined the visual display of a poem in the
1716
+
manner of a musical score, with the fixed-width typography
1717
+
of the typewritten manuscript becoming a strict temporal
1718
+
axis stretching evenly across the printed page. Olson’s essay
1719
+
1720
+
46 Introduction
1721
+
“Projective Verse” (1950) described a rhythmic aspect of
1722
+
“open field” composition, in which the visual arrangement of
1723
+
the poem on the page serves as the definitive guide to
1724
+
performance, with the understanding that each line of verse
1725
+
would be equivalent in duration to one breath on the part of
1726
+
the reader. He writes:
1727
+
1728
+
It is the advantage of the typewriter that, due to its
1729
+
rigidity and its space precisions, it can, for a poet,
1730
+
indicate exactly the breath, the pauses, the
1731
+
suspensions even of syllables, the juxtapositions
1732
+
even of parts of phrases, which he intends. For the
1733
+
first time the poet has the stave and the bar a
1734
+
musician has had. For the first time he can, without
1735
+
the convention of rime and meter, record the
1736
+
listening he has done to his own speech and by that
1737
+
one act indicate how he would want any reader,
1738
+
silently or otherwise, to voice his work. It is time we
1739
+
picked the fruits of the experiments of Cummings,
1740
+
Pound, Williams, each of whom has, after his way,
1741
+
already used the machine as a scoring to his
1742
+
composing, as a script to its vocalization.78
1743
+
1744
+
Around the same time that Olson developed his
1745
+
theory of projective verse, a generation of concrete poets in
1746
+
Brazil and elsewhere employed typography not just for visual
1747
+
effects but also as a score-like guide to performers.79
1748
+
Although concrete poets have long been misunderstood as
1749
+
working in a purely visual medium, recent scholarship has
1750
+
sought to recover their overlooked sonic dimensions. The
1751
+
Brazilian poets Haroldo and Augusto de Campos referred to
1752
+
their influential experiments across the nexus of word,
1753
+
image, and sound as verbivocovisual, a neologism drawn
1754
+
from James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake (1939).80 Many
1755
+
concrete poets saw their strategies as an aesthetic counter
1756
+
to the increasingly ubiquitous visual language of capitalist
1757
+
advertising that was permeating their rapidly urbanizing
1758
+
cities, and some wrote poems that critically engaged popular
1759
+
1760
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 47
1761
+
advertising through sonic wordplay rendered in the color
1762
+
palettes of iconic brands, as Décio Pignatari did in Beba Coca
1763
+
Cola (1957) (fig. 0.10). Rather than establishing a
1764
+
countercultural priesthood of high art, these poets sought to
1765
+
build their own aesthetic and cultural theories from scratch,
1766
+
articulating a clean, definitive break with European
1767
+
modernisms that had been permanently discredited by
1768
+
association with two world wars.81 Still other concrete
1769
+
poets sought to reify their works by having them fabricated
1770
+
in heftier material forms, as did the Scottish poet and
1771
+
gardener Ian Hamilton Finlay, who constructed and
1772
+
commissioned site-specific works in wood, glass, and stone
1773
+
for his home, known as Little Sparta (fig. 0.11). This diversity
1774
+
of aims and programs for concrete poetry was recognized at
1775
+
the time by Fluxus affiliate Emmett Williams, who edited an
1776
+
impressively international and multilingual collection of
1777
+
concrete poetry in 1967.82
1778
+
Given the range of midcentury poets working at
1779
+
some proximity to experimental scores, it may appear
1780
+
strange that the use of language by the key figures featured
1781
+
in The Scores Project—and particularly in event scores by
1782
+
Young, Brecht, and Mac Low, or in Cage’s lectures, which
1783
+
echoed Olson’s experimental concept of open-field
1784
+
composition—may appear so conspicuously disengaged
1785
+
from both the visual and the aural experiments of their poetic
1786
+
contemporaries. But this, too, simply requires further
1787
+
historical context. Many of these figures were fascinated by
1788
+
a certain optimism about the transparency of language that
1789
+
characterized midcentury discourses of cybernetics,
1790
+
positivism, infographics, the imperative grammar of ad
1791
+
agency sloganeering, or the rhetoric of protest signs.83
1792
+
Though these artists often took such language to
1793
+
provocative extremes or subjected it to forms of critique,
1794
+
such an exhortatory tone, previously associated with
1795
+
didactic and moralizing traditions, had heretofore been
1796
+
virtually absent from the traditional scope of lyric, modern,
1797
+
and avant-garde poets.84 (Kaprow may be considered an
1798
+
1799
+
48 Introduction
1800
+
Fig. 0.10 Décio Pignatari (Brazilian, 1927–2012). Beba Coca Cola, 1957,
1801
+
screen print. From Poesia concreta in Brasile (Milan: Archivio della Grazia di
1802
+
Nuova Scrittura, 1991), n.p. Getty Research Institute, item 45-13. Estate of
1803
+
Décio Pignatari.
1804
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/010/
1805
+
1806
+
1807
+
1808
+
1809
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 49
1810
+
Fig. 0.11 Ian Hamilton Finlay (Scottish, 1925–2006). Star/Steer, 1965,
1811
+
sandblasted glass in wooden base. By courtesy of the Estate of Ian
1812
+
Hamilton Finlay.
1813
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/011/
1814
+
1815
+
1816
+
1817
+
1818
+
50 Introduction
1819
+
exception to this functionalist trend, as his approach to
1820
+
rhetoric and communication was more clearly influenced by
1821
+
the Beat poets, particularly Allen Ginsberg.)
1822
+
As a case in point, the language-based instructions
1823
+
that accompany Cage’s score for Concert for Piano and
1824
+
Orchestra deploy a view of language as essentially
1825
+
functional and communicative. The purpose is simply to
1826
+
explain how the performer should interpret the
1827
+
unconventional notations in the pages that follow. If
1828
+
anything, Cage’s use of language derives from scientific
1829
+
communication, symbolic logic, and informational graphics.
1830
+
Just as one might label the values being plotted on the x and
1831
+
y axes of a chart or graph, so Cage instructs the performer
1832
+
about the values of the parameters of his calligraphic
1833
+
squiggles and amoebas. Tudor’s highly calculated and
1834
+
systematic approach to his realizations—which, in the case
1835
+
of his second realization of the Concert for Piano, ballooned
1836
+
into pages upon pages of preparatory work with precise ruler
1837
+
measurements and calculations in long division—effectively
1838
+
doubles down on a quantitative method for resolving the
1839
+
relationship between the graphic and linguistic elements of
1840
+
Cage’s score.
1841
+
And yet, if the avant-gardists in The Scores Project
1842
+
did not necessarily see their use of language as poetic, it
1843
+
does not mean that their claims to linguistic transparency
1844
+
were devoid of ontological and aesthetic richness. Even as
1845
+
their score language appears simple, direct, unadorned, and
1846
+
functional—occasionally akin to stage directions—some
1847
+
instructions are often so compressed that they ironically
1848
+
invite perplexity or confusion. As John Hicks demonstrates
1849
+
in chapter 7 on Mac Low’s provocative postcard scores, the
1850
+
bracing simplicity of their language echoes some of the more
1851
+
conceptually oriented, koan-like event scores of Brecht,
1852
+
Young, and Ono, deliberately testing the limits of what is
1853
+
performable or even imaginable. These text-based scores,
1854
+
with their ambivalent and complex relation to the history of
1855
+
poetry and music, and their curious position between the
1856
+
1857
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 51
1858
+
ideal and the material, in many ways prefigured the broader
1859
+
turn to language in late 1960s conceptual art.85 For certain,
1860
+
they mark a major touchstone in the development of
1861
+
contemporary performance art and related intermedia
1862
+
practices.
1863
+
1864
+
1865
+
An Invitation
1866
+
1867
+
This publication is an invitation to explore. Experimental
1868
+
scores are philosophically and historically complex entities,
1869
+
a key reason they became so fascinating and popular during
1870
+
the 1960s. We hope the unified multisensory format of The
1871
+
Scores Project facilitates a comparative understanding of
1872
+
multiple realities and modes of existence for each score that
1873
+
may have been difficult if not impossible to imagine in the
1874
+
traditional physical spaces of an archive, gallery, or
1875
+
performance venue.
1876
+
Certain guiding questions may facilitate
1877
+
comparisons: What did artists prioritize in their scores and
1878
+
instructions? Even though each of these scores has an
1879
+
author, to what extent was their authorship fundamentally
1880
+
collaborative? Were the works intended for specific
1881
+
performers, readers, or viewers? Or for unknown
1882
+
participants or communities? Were participants presumed to
1883
+
be skilled or informed in any way? Did these works rely on an
1884
+
existing social habitus, a socially competitive scene or
1885
+
clique, or institutional structures and authorities? Is
1886
+
extension in time given the same weight in each score? Does
1887
+
a recorded performance in turn affect future interpretations
1888
+
of a score? This is particularly the case with dance, in which
1889
+
filmed documentation captures many more details of bodily
1890
+
movement—and ultimately intellectual property—than can
1891
+
be preserved in dance notation and instructions. But it is also
1892
+
true for Kaprow, Knowles, and Shiomi, who turned
1893
+
documentation of an action into its own kind of score. It is
1894
+
true for Brecht’s Drip Music (Drip Event) (1959–62; see
1895
+
chapter 6), in which a particular interpretation of the work
1896
+
1897
+
52 Introduction
1898
+
involving a ladder and a watering can, reiterated through
1899
+
repeated stagings as well as photographic and filmic
1900
+
documentation, helped codify a post-facto performance
1901
+
protocol, one Brecht himself avoided. To what extent did
1902
+
artists retain traditional aesthetic values of appealing design
1903
+
in their scores? Or of arresting, peaceful, beautiful, or
1904
+
disturbing sounds and images in the result? Is it possible to
1905
+
have a “bad” or tasteless performance of these scores? If so,
1906
+
how and why? Is it because we as twenty-first-century
1907
+
participants have ironically been seduced by the author-
1908
+
function and a desire to preserve a work’s historical
1909
+
integrity?
1910
+
As we keep these questions in mind, the archival
1911
+
records for each of these scores provide a front-row seat to
1912
+
the sociohistorical context from which the works first
1913
+
emerged. Rather than supposing the score is some kind of
1914
+
urtext for the work, users can compare realizations, notes,
1915
+
and correspondence to understand some of the larger
1916
+
conceptual apparatuses and influences that went into the
1917
+
creation and performances of the scores. We hope users will
1918
+
arrive at new materials and conceptual understandings of
1919
+
each score by working directly from archives and historical
1920
+
materials to better understand the philosophical practices at
1921
+
play. For example, in newspaper clippings, we can trace a
1922
+
history of middle brow receptions of performances that is
1923
+
unfiltered by the idealized lens of disciplinary
1924
+
metanarratives. As archival correspondence shows, fraught
1925
+
negotiations over artists’ compensation and recognition for
1926
+
their creative work sometimes conflicted with their
1927
+
professed desires to de-commodify the art object. In turn,
1928
+
such material needs have raised important questions for
1929
+
museums and collectors today. Recent scholarship linking
1930
+
art history, performance studies, museum and curatorial
1931
+
studies, and conservation has begun to track in earnest how
1932
+
the score format has become an essential tool of legally
1933
+
compensating artists for otherwise ephemeral works.86
1934
+
1935
+
1936
+
1937
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 53
1938
+
Considering the wealth of materials gathered in The
1939
+
Scores Project, we can ascertain how the identities and
1940
+
reception of these multifaceted experimental compositions
1941
+
shifted over time through the engagement of different
1942
+
communities of performers and audiences, some quite
1943
+
distant from the scores’ original authors. Accordingly, we
1944
+
have included ephemera typically omitted or sidelined in
1945
+
traditional scholarship and arranged these materials into
1946
+
constellations that facilitate new understanding of the works
1947
+
from which they derive. In other words, The Scores Project
1948
+
reimagines the format and user experience of scholarship on
1949
+
interdisciplinary arts by taking cues from the art itself.
1950
+
Through its accessible design, far-reaching historical
1951
+
narrative, and abundance of exciting primary materials, this
1952
+
project aims to create a compelling, dynamic model for the
1953
+
curation and communication of performance materials to the
1954
+
general public.
1955
+
Even so, when such rich archival materials are
1956
+
available, we as readers, viewers, listeners, and participants
1957
+
do not construct the context for experimental scores from
1958
+
the ground up. To every work we encounter for the first time,
1959
+
we bring our past experiences and understandings of all the
1960
+
works we have encountered previously—experiences that
1961
+
undoubtedly color our reception of new ones. Those with
1962
+
academic training may assume the role of a hypothetical,
1963
+
idealized “reader” of literature, “viewer” of visual art,
1964
+
“listener” of music, or “participant” in performances and
1965
+
happenings. Accompanying these idealized readers,
1966
+
viewers, listeners, and participants are a host of other
1967
+
implicit assumptions about the context or habitus in which
1968
+
their encounters take place: private, undisturbed reading;
1969
+
contemplative viewing in a white-cube gallery; listening to a
1970
+
high-fidelity recording or in an acoustically optimized
1971
+
performance space; and so on. It is these baseline
1972
+
assumptions that many of the scores presented in this
1973
+
publication willfully disrupt. Yes, this publication is an
1974
+
invitation to explore. But arguably it does more, as do the
1975
+
1976
+
54 Introduction
1977
+
scores featured within it. They invite us to rethink how one
1978
+
writes history or practices theory and philosophy, and they
1979
+
ask us to understand how artistic practice itself dislodges
1980
+
the familiar and, in doing so, creates new and provocative
1981
+
forms of life.
1982
+
1983
+
Notes
1984
+
1985
+
1. Dick Higgins, “Intermedia” (1965–66), republished with commentary by
1986
+
Hannah Higgins in Leonardo 34, no. 1 (2001): 49–54; and Dick Higgins,
1987
+
“Statement on Intermedia” (1966), in Dé-coll/age 6 (1967), ed. Wolf
1988
+
Vostell, reprinted in In the Spirit of Fluxus, ed. Elizabeth Armstrong and
1989
+
Joan Rothfuss, exh. cat. (Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, 1993),
1990
+
172–73. See also Natilee Harren, “The Crux of Fluxus: Intermedia, Rear-
1991
+
Guard,” in Art Expanded, 1958–1978, ed. Eric Crosby with Liz Glass, vol.
1992
+
2 of Living Collections Catalogue (Minneapolis: Walker Art Center,
1993
+
2015), https://walkerart.org/collections/publications/art-expanded/
1994
+
crux-of-fluxus/; and Trevor Stark, “Passionate Expanse of the Law:
1995
+
Intermedia and the Problem of Discipline,” in Call It Something Else:
1996
+
Something Else Press, Inc. 1963–1974, by Alice Centamore and
1997
+
Christian Xatrec (Madrid: Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía,
1998
+
2023), 48–60.
1999
+
2. Clement Greenberg, “Modernist Painting” (1960), in The New Art: A
2000
+
Critical Anthology, ed. Gregory Battcock (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1966);
2001
+
Leo Steinberg, “Other Criteria” (1968), in Other Criteria: Confrontations
2002
+
with Twentieth-Century Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2003
+
2007); and Rosalind Krauss and Yve-Alain Bois, Formless: A User’s
2004
+
Guide (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997).
2005
+
3. A number of studies have laid groundwork pointing to the important role
2006
+
of scores in 1960s visual and performance art, including Hannah Higgins,
2007
+
Fluxus Experience (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002);
2008
+
Liz Kotz, Words to Be Looked At: Language in 1960s Art (Cambridge,
2009
+
MA: MIT Press, 2007); Branden Joseph, Beyond the Dream Syndicate:
2010
+
Tony Conrad and the Arts after Cage (New York: Zone Books, 2008);
2011
+
Julia Robinson, “From Abstraction to Model: George Brecht’s Events and
2012
+
the Conceptual Turn in Art of the 1960s,” October 127 (Winter 2009):
2013
+
77–108; Jane McFadden, Walter De Maria: Meaningless Work (London:
2014
+
Reaktion Books, 2016); and Natilee Harren, Fluxus Forms: Scores,
2015
+
Multiples, and the Eternal Network (Chicago: University of Chicago
2016
+
Press, 2020).
2017
+
4. See, for example, Umberto Eco, The Open Work (Cambridge, MA:
2018
+
Harvard University Press, 1989); Richard Wollheim, Art and Its Objects
2019
+
2020
+
2021
+
2022
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 55
2023
+
(New York: Harper & Row, 1968); Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art:
2024
+
An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1976);
2025
+
Roman Ingarden, The Work of Music and the Problem of Its Identity,
2026
+
trans. Adam Czerniawski (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2027
+
1986); and Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works (New
2028
+
York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
2029
+
5. Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “Score (n.),” https://doi.org/10
2030
+
.1093/OED/2363072221. Note as well that in German the word for a
2031
+
score is Partitur, which is of Latinate origin, deriving from partire,
2032
+
meaning to divide, partition, or share.
2033
+
6. David Charlton and Kathryn Whitney, “Score,” Grove Music Online, 20
2034
+
January 2001, https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article
2035
+
.25241.
2036
+
7. For a detailed treatment of the integration of orality and memory with
2037
+
early forms of medieval musical notation, see Anna Maria Busse Berger,
2038
+
Medieval Music and the Art of Memory (Berkeley: University of California
2039
+
Press, 2005). See also Thomas Forrest Kelly, Capturing Music: The Story
2040
+
of Notation (New York: W. W. Norton, 2015); and Hannah Higgins,
2041
+
“Notation,” The Grid Book (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009).
2042
+
8. Standardized Western notation, made accessible by the Western
2043
+
publishing industry, served to reinforce biases and stereotypes held by
2044
+
the West’s imperial and colonial plunderers, and they were thus more
2045
+
likely to approach the music of non-Western peoples as something to be
2046
+
extracted and exoticized rather than understood and appreciated on its
2047
+
own terms. See Glenda Goodman, “Sounds Heard, Meaning Deferred:
2048
+
Music Transcription as Imperial Technology,” Eighteenth-Century
2049
+
Studies 52, no. 1 (2018): 39–45.
2050
+
9. For an example of an ethnocentric teleology that privileges Western
2051
+
classical music notation as a quasi-Hegelian synthesis of past attempts,
2052
+
see the entry on “Notation,” by Ian D. Bent et al., in Grove Music Online,
2053
+
https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.20114. Bent and
2054
+
his coauthors position Western classical notation as an ideal synthesis of
2055
+
a series of historical developments. But from a global perspective, the
2056
+
detailed specifications of modern Western notation is but one system
2057
+
among many. Even within Western Europe, dynamic markings did not
2058
+
appear until the seventeenth century, articulation marks emerged during
2059
+
the nineteenth century, and both were the product of various
2060
+
experiments forwarded by various composers from within Europe. See
2061
+
David Cope, New Music Notation (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing,
2062
+
1976), 3.
2063
+
10. Goehr, Imaginary Museum.
2064
+
11. For an approach to some of the dramatic conflicts and scenes of social
2065
+
tension in New York–based experimental music in 1964, see Benjamin
2066
+
2067
+
2068
+
56 Introduction
2069
+
Piekut’s take in Experimentalism Otherwise (Berkeley: University of
2070
+
California Press, 2011).
2071
+
12. Luigi Russolo, The Art of Noises (Futurist Manifesto, 1913), trans. Robert
2072
+
Filliou, A Great Bear Pamphlet (New York: Something Else Press, 1967),
2073
+
accessible at https://www.ubu.com/historical/gb/russolo_noise.pdf.
2074
+
Filliou was a French artist associated with Fluxus alongside Dick Higgins,
2075
+
founder of Something Else Press, which issued this translation in
2076
+
chapbook form.
2077
+
13. Luigi Russolo, Risveglio di una Città, originally published in Lacerba (1
2078
+
March 1914): 72–73.
2079
+
14. For a synoptic account of this period, see Carol Oja, Making Music
2080
+
Modern (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Of note, Dick
2081
+
Higgins’s Something Else Press (see note 12 above) reissued Cowell’s
2082
+
New Musical Resources in 1969, in acknowledgment of its renewed
2083
+
relevance.
2084
+
15. Edgard Varèse and Chou Wen-chung, “The Liberation of Sound,”
2085
+
Perspectives of New Music 5, no. 1 (1966): 11–19.
2086
+
16. Cage describes some of these influences in his famous 1937 essay, “The
2087
+
Future of Music: Credo,” in Silence: Lectures and Writings by John Cage
2088
+
(Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 3–6.
2089
+
17. George E. Lewis, “Improvised Music after 1950: Afrological and
2090
+
Eurological Perspectives,” Black Music Research Journal 22,
2091
+
Supplement: Best of BMRJ (2002), 215–46.
2092
+
18. See Michael Zwerin, “A Lethal Measurement,” in John Cage: An
2093
+
Anthology, ed. Richard Kostelanetz (New York: Praeger, 1970), 161–68;
2094
+
reprint, New York: Da Capo Press; discussed and cited in Lewis,
2095
+
“Improvised Music after 1950,” 227–28. See also Caroline A. Jones,
2096
+
“Finishing School: John Cage and the Abstract Expressionist Ego,”
2097
+
Critical Inquiry 19 (1993): 628–65; and Rebecca Y. Kim, “John Cage in
2098
+
Separate Togetherness with Jazz,” Contemporary Music Review (2012):
2099
+
63–89.
2100
+
19. Varèse himself had an ambivalent attitude toward jazz that evolved from
2101
+
racist disapproval to a marginal, if inconsequential, curiosity during the
2102
+
1950s. In 1957, Varèse convened recording sessions of Greenwich
2103
+
House Music School that brought in a largely white cast of jazz
2104
+
improvisers, with the noted exceptions of Art Farmer and Charles
2105
+
Mingus. See Brigid Cohen, “Enigmas of the Third Space: Mingus and
2106
+
Varèse at Greenwich House, 1957,” Journal of the American
2107
+
Musicological Society 71, no. 1 (2018): 155–211.
2108
+
20. See Benjamin Patterson, “I’m Glad You Asked Me That Question,” in
2109
+
Benjamin Patterson: Born in the State of FLUX/us, by Valerie Cassel
2110
+
Oliver (Houston: Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, 2010), 110; and
2111
+
Benjamin Patterson, oral history interview by Kathy Goncharov, 22 May
2112
+
2113
+
2114
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 57
2115
+
2009, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
2116
+
D.C., https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history
2117
+
-interview-benjamin-patterson-15685#transcript. Patterson immigrated
2118
+
to Canada in search of work in 1957, then left in 1959 for France and
2119
+
Germany. He remained largely in Germany until his return to New York in
2120
+
1963. He later returned to Germany, where he spent the rest of his life.
2121
+
21. See, for example, David Toop’s interview with Ornette Coleman in David
2122
+
Toop, Exotica: Fabricated Soundscapes in a Real World (London:
2123
+
Serpent’s Tail, 1999), 187.
2124
+
22. At the grand register of cultural policy and transatlantic competition,
2125
+
jazz—much like abstract expressionist painting—was by midcentury
2126
+
being used to assert the artistic supremacy of New York over Paris, as
2127
+
well as an ideological agenda of democratic “freedom” against the Cold
2128
+
War threat of Communism. See Lisa Davenport, Jazz Diplomacy:
2129
+
Promoting America in the Cold War Era (Jackson: University Press of
2130
+
Mississippi, 2009); Danielle Fosler-Lussier, Music in America’s Cold War
2131
+
Diplomacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); Timothy
2132
+
Brennan, Afro-Latin Music and Imperial Jazz (Brooklyn, NY: Verso,
2133
+
2008); and Jairo Moreno, “Imperial Aurality: Jazz, the Archive, and U.S.
2134
+
Empire,” in Audible Empire: Music, Global Politics, Critique, ed. Ronald
2135
+
Radano and Tejumola Olaniyan (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
2136
+
2016), 135–60. For middle- to upper-class white people in the United
2137
+
States, jazz would also become the basis for the mimetic trope of the
2138
+
countercultural hipster while similarly serving as an “authentically”
2139
+
American inspiration for abstract expressionists and Beat poets, among
2140
+
many other artists and writers. For a historical account of this
2141
+
phenomenon, see Norman Mailer, “The White Negro,” Dissent (1957):
2142
+
157–66.
2143
+
23. Brown started his musical life as a trumpeter and big-band arranger, and
2144
+
while working as a recording engineer for Capitol Records from 1955 to
2145
+
1960, he crossed paths with Black musicians including Count Basie and
2146
+
Ray Charles. See Jason Cady, “An Overview of Earle Brown’s Techniques
2147
+
and Media,” in Beyond Notation: The Music of Earle Brown, ed. Rebecca
2148
+
Y. Kim (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2017). Brown also
2149
+
produced, from 1960 to 1973, a series of recordings titled Contemporary
2150
+
Sound Series for Time/Mainstream Records that would help expand the
2151
+
notoriety of the midcentury musical avant-garde. See D. J. Hoek,
2152
+
“Documenting the International Avant Garde: Earle Brown and the Time-
2153
+
Mainstream Contemporary Sound Series,” Notes 61, no. 2 (2004):
2154
+
350–60.
2155
+
24. See LeRoi Jones [Amiri Baraka], Blues People (New York: Harper
2156
+
Perennial, 1999); Scott DeVeaux, The Birth of Bebop: A Social and
2157
+
Musical History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997); and Eric
2158
+
2159
+
2160
+
58 Introduction
2161
+
Porter, What Is This Thing Called Jazz? African American Musicians as
2162
+
Artists, Critics, and Activists (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2163
+
2002).
2164
+
25. Lewis, “Improvised Music after 1950,” 218.
2165
+
26. La Monte Young and Jackson Mac Low, eds. (with George Maciunas,
2166
+
designer), An Anthology of Chance Operations (New York: self-
2167
+
published, 1963); and John Cage and Alison Knowles, eds., Notations
2168
+
(New York: Something Else Press, 1969). Beyond these primary
2169
+
anthologies, practical and systematic guides for the use of experimental
2170
+
notations have since been published. See, for example, Howard Risatti,
2171
+
New Music Vocabulary: A Guide to Notational Signs for Contemporary
2172
+
Music (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975); and Gardner Read,
2173
+
Pictographic Score Notation: A Compendium (Westport, CT: Greenwood
2174
+
Press, 1998).
2175
+
27. On the collaborative and improvisational practices of Cage, Tudor,
2176
+
Gordon Mumma, David Behrman, Ichiyanagi, and Takehisa Kosugi with
2177
+
the Merce Cunningham Dance Company of the 1960s and ’70s, see
2178
+
Benjamin Piekut, “Not So Much a Program of Music as the Experience of
2179
+
Music,” in Merce Cunningham: CO:MM:ON TI:ME, ed. Fionn Meade and
2180
+
Joan Rothfuss (Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, 2017), 114–29. For
2181
+
more on Tudor’s work with modular synthesizers, see You Nakai,
2182
+
Reminded by the Instruments: David Tudor’s Music (New York: Oxford
2183
+
University Press, 2021).
2184
+
28. Pauline Oliveros, Deep Listening: A Composer’s Sound Practice (Lincoln,
2185
+
NE: iUniverse, 2005), 29.
2186
+
29. See Amy Cimini, Wild Sound: Maryanne Amacher and the Tenses of
2187
+
Audible Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2022).
2188
+
30. Leah Dickerman et al., Dada: Zurich, Berlin, Hannover, Cologne, New
2189
+
York, Paris (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 2005); and Leah
2190
+
Dickerman, “Dada Gambits,” October 105 (2003): 3–12.
2191
+
31. See Molly Nesbit, “The Language of Industry,” in The Definitively
2192
+
Unfinished Marcel Duchamp, ed. Thierry De Duve (Halifax: Nova Scotia
2193
+
College of Art and Design, 1991); and David Joselit, “Dada’s Diagrams,”
2194
+
in The Dada Seminars, ed. Leah Dickerman and Matthew S. Witkovsky
2195
+
(Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 2005). Regarding his
2196
+
decision in the 1960s to agree to the re-creation in edition of a number of
2197
+
his readymades that had been lost or destroyed, Duchamp explained that
2198
+
the readymade proposed “to wipe out the idea of the original, which
2199
+
exists neither in music nor in poetry.” Marcel Duchamp, quoted in Otto
2200
+
Hahn, “Passport No. G255300,” Art and Artists 1, no. 4 (July 1966): 7.
2201
+
32. On sound poetry, see Marjorie Perloff, The Futurist Moment: Avant-
2202
+
Garde, Avant-Guerre, and the Language of Rupture (Chicago: University
2203
+
of Chicago Press, 1985); Douglas Kahn, Noise Water Meat (Cambridge,
2204
+
2205
+
2206
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 59
2207
+
MA: MIT Press, 2001); Marjorie Perloff and Craig Dworkin, eds., The
2208
+
Sound of Poetry / The Poetry of Sound (Chicago: University of Chicago
2209
+
Press, 2009); and Nancy Perloff, Explodity: Sound, Image, and Word in
2210
+
Russian Futurist Book Art (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2016).
2211
+
See also Explodity’s associated interactive website: https://www.getty
2212
+
.edu/research/publications/explodity/index.html.
2213
+
33. Trevor Stark, Total Expansion of the Letter: Avant-Garde Art and
2214
+
Language after Mallarmé (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020). See also
2215
+
Willard Bohn, Apollinaire, Visual Poetry, and Art Criticism (Lewisburg,
2216
+
PA: Bucknell University Press, 1993).
2217
+
34. Ralf Burmeister, Michaela Oberhofer, and Esther Tisa Francini, eds.,
2218
+
Dada Africa: Dialogue with the Other, exh. cat. (Zürich: Scheidegger und
2219
+
Spiess, 2016). See also Kurt Beals, “Primitivismus: The Dada Rhythms of
2220
+
Rhythmus 21,” in Hans Richters Rhythmus 21: Schlüsselfilm der
2221
+
Moderne, ed. Christoph Bareither, Kurt Beals, Michael Cowan, Paul
2222
+
Dobryden et al. (Würzburg, Germany: Königshausen & Neumann, 2012);
2223
+
and Kurt Beals, Wireless Dada: Telegraphic Poetics in the Avant-Garde
2224
+
(Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2019).
2225
+
35. On the politics of Dada sound poetry and collage, see T. J. Demos,
2226
+
“Circulations: In and around Zurich Dada,” October 105 (Summer 2003);
2227
+
Demos, “Zurich Dada: The Aesthetics of Exile,” in Dickerman and
2228
+
Witkovsky, Dada Seminars; Hal Foster, “Dada Mime,” October 105
2229
+
(Summer 2003); Megan R. Luke, Kurt Schwitters: Space, Image, Exile
2230
+
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014); and Stark, Total Expansion
2231
+
of the Letter.
2232
+
36. Martin Duberman, Black Mountain: An Exploration in Community (New
2233
+
York: E. P. Dutton, 1972); Eva Díaz, The Experimenters: Chance and
2234
+
Design at Black Mountain College (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2235
+
2015); Helen Molesworth and Ruth Erickson, Leap before You Look:
2236
+
Black Mountain College, 1933–1957 (Boston and New Haven, CT:
2237
+
Institute of Contemporary Art Boston in association with Yale University
2238
+
Press, 2015); and Eugen Blume et al., eds., Black Mountain: An
2239
+
Interdisciplinary Experiment, 1933–1957 (Leipzig: Spektor Books,
2240
+
2015). For a digital archive of Black Mountain College’s history, see https
2241
+
://www.blackmountaincollege.org/politicsdigitalportal/.
2242
+
37. Josef Albers, “Art as Experience,” Progressive Education 12 (October
2243
+
1935): 391–93. The title of Albers’s essay is a nod to John Dewey’s Art
2244
+
as Experience (1934; reprint, New York: Perigee, 1980). See also Jeffrey
2245
+
Saletnik, Josef Albers, Late Modernism, and Pedagogic Form (Chicago:
2246
+
University of Chicago Press, 2022).
2247
+
38. Paul Klee, Pedagogical Sketchbook, trans. Sibyl Moholy-Nagy (New
2248
+
York: Praeger, 1953); and Wassily Kandinsky, Point and Line to Plane,
2249
+
2250
+
2251
+
2252
+
2253
+
60 Introduction
2254
+
trans. Howard Dearstyne and Hilla Rebay (New York: Solomon R.
2255
+
Guggenheim Foundation / Museum of Non-Objective Painting, 1947).
2256
+
39. Fabienne Eggelhöfer and Marianne Keller Tschirren, Paul Klee: Bauhaus
2257
+
Master (Madrid: Fundación Juan March, 2013), 49; Klee, Pedagogical
2258
+
Sketchbook, 16; and Kandinsky, Point and Line to Plane, 40–45.
2259
+
40. See Kimberly Jannarone, Artaud and His Doubles (Ann Arbor: University
2260
+
of Michigan Press, 2010).
2261
+
41. Pierre Boulez, “Propositions,” Polyphonie, no. 2 (1948): 65–72.
2262
+
42. For an account of the transmission of Artaud’s writings through Boulez,
2263
+
Cage, Tudor, and M. C. Richards, see Eric Smigel, “Recital Hall of Cruelty:
2264
+
Antonin Artaud, David Tudor, and the 1950s Avant-Garde,” Perspectives
2265
+
of New Music 45, no. 2 (2007): 171–202. On Artaud’s reception in the
2266
+
visual arts, see Frédéric Acquaviva and Kaira Cabañas, Specters of
2267
+
Artaud: Language and the Arts in the 1950s, exh. cat. (Madrid: Museo
2268
+
Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, 2012); and Lucy Bradnock, No More
2269
+
Masterpieces: Modern Art after Artaud (New Haven, CT: Yale University
2270
+
Press, 2020).
2271
+
43. Cage and Tudor also visited Black Mountain College in the summer of
2272
+
1951, where Tudor performed an aggressive and dissonant (Artaud-
2273
+
inspired) program of fully notated piano pieces: Boulez’s Second Sonata
2274
+
and excerpts from Cage’s Music of Changes (1951). Cage first saw
2275
+
Robert Rauschenberg’s White Painting [three panel] (1951) the following
2276
+
summer, when it was included in Theater Piece No. 1 (1952).
2277
+
44. Following the Alberses’ departure from Black Mountain in 1949, the
2278
+
college would subsequently come under the leadership of the poet
2279
+
Charles Olson, who officially became rector in 1953. For a detailed
2280
+
chronology, see Duberman, Black Mountain: Exploration in Community.
2281
+
45. In Cage’s words, Theater Piece No. 1 was also strongly influenced by
2282
+
Artaud: “We got the idea from Artaud that theater could take place free of
2283
+
a text, that if a text were in it, that it needn’t determine the other actions,
2284
+
that sounds, that activities, and so forth, could all be free rather than tied
2285
+
together. . . . And this was extended on this occasion [Theater Piece No.
2286
+
1] not only to music and dance, but to poetry and painting, and so forth,
2287
+
to the audience. So that the audience was not focused in one particular
2288
+
direction.” Richard Kostelanetz, Conversing with Cage (New York:
2289
+
Limelight Editions, 1988), 110. See also Branden Joseph, “Moving
2290
+
Images,” in Random Order: Robert Rauschenberg and the Neo-Avant-
2291
+
Garde (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).
2292
+
46. For the overlapping oral histories of Cage’s otherwise undocumented
2293
+
Theater Piece No. 1, see Duberman’s exhaustive Black Mountain:
2294
+
Exploration in Community, particularly chapter 12, “A New Black
2295
+
Mountain,” 334–62, and the comprehensive accounts given in William
2296
+
Fetterman, John Cage’s Theatre Pieces: Notations and Performances
2297
+
2298
+
2299
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 61
2300
+
(New York: Routledge, 1995), and Eva Díaz, “John Cage’s Chance
2301
+
Protocols,” in Experimenters.
2302
+
47. See Catherine Craft, An Audience of Artists: Dada, Neo-Dada, and the
2303
+
Emergence of Abstract Expressionism (Chicago: University of Chicago
2304
+
Press, 2012), 3.
2305
+
48. Craft, Audience of Artists, 44. Annette Leddy argues that an important
2306
+
but underrecognized influence on Motherwell’s ideas was an intense six-
2307
+
month visit to a group of “dissident surrealists” who were riding out
2308
+
World War II in Mexico City and who formulated their break with
2309
+
Surrealism in the journal Dyn. See Leddy, “The Painting Aesthetic of
2310
+
Dyn,” in Annette Leddy and Donna Conwell, Farewell to Surrealism: The
2311
+
Dyn Circle in Mexico, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute,
2312
+
2012), 9–34.
2313
+
49. Other revelatory, canon-forming exhibitions that cemented Dada’s place
2314
+
in narratives of twentieth-century art include Dada: Dokumente einer
2315
+
Bewegung (Düsseldorf: Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, 1958), The Art of
2316
+
Assemblage (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1961), and Dada,
2317
+
Surrealism, and Their Heritage (New York: Museum of Modern Art,
2318
+
1968).
2319
+
50. Sandra Zalman, Consuming Surrealism in America: Dissident Modernism
2320
+
(Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015).
2321
+
51. Beginning with their first retrospective accounting in a 1970 exhibition in
2322
+
Cologne organized by Harald Szeemann and Hanns Sohm, happenings
2323
+
and Fluxus have been historicized as partner movements given the
2324
+
proximity of the artists’ social circles and aligned aesthetic and
2325
+
intellectual interests. However, much like the often paired movements of
2326
+
Dada and Surrealism, their appreciable differences are increasingly being
2327
+
recognized. Harald Szeemann and Hanns Sohm, eds., Happening &
2328
+
Fluxus (Cologne: Kölnischer Kunstverein, 1970).
2329
+
52. George Maciunas, “Neo-Dada in Music, Theater, Poetry, Art” (1962), in
2330
+
Armstrong and Rothfuss, In the Spirit of Fluxus, 156–57.
2331
+
53. Brecht’s notebooks show that Cage invited critique of the ideas that
2332
+
eventually became his famous lectures on indeterminacy given in
2333
+
Darmstadt, Germany, in September 1958. See Rebecca Y. Kim, “In No
2334
+
Uncertain Musical Terms: The Cultural Politics of John Cage’s
2335
+
Indeterminacy” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2008), 153–54; and
2336
+
Harren, Fluxus Forms, 60. Cage’s writings from this period are collected
2337
+
in Silence: Lectures and Writings by John Cage (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan
2338
+
University Press, 1961).
2339
+
54. Liz Kotz, “Post-Cagean Aesthetics and the Event Score,” in Words to Be
2340
+
Looked At, 59–98. On Ono’s complex, and often overlooked,
2341
+
relationship to this historical moment, see Brigid Cohen, Musical
2342
+
2343
+
2344
+
2345
+
2346
+
62 Introduction
2347
+
Migration and Imperial New York: Early Cold War Scenes (Chicago:
2348
+
University of Chicago Press, 2022), 179–222.
2349
+
55. Brenda Dixon Gottschild, The Black Dancing Body: A Geography from
2350
+
Coon to Cool (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).
2351
+
56. See Lewis, “Improvised Music after 1950.” Jeremy Grimshaw details the
2352
+
influence of Indian classical music on Young in Draw a Straight Line and
2353
+
Follow It: The Music and Mysticism of La Monte Young (New York:
2354
+
Oxford University Press, 2011). Recent studies charting a distinct
2355
+
lineage and theoretical framework for radical Black performance include
2356
+
Malik Gaines, Black Performance on the Outskirts of the Left: A History of
2357
+
the Impossible (New York: New York University Press, 2017), and Uri
2358
+
McMillan, Embodied Avatars: Genealogies of Black Feminist Art and
2359
+
Performance (New York: New York University Press, 2015). In the fields
2360
+
of music studies, see Paul Steinbeck, Sound Experiments: The Music of
2361
+
the AACM (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022); Ana R. Alonso-
2362
+
Minutti, Eduardo Herrera, and Alejandro L. Madrid, eds.,
2363
+
Experimentalisms in Practice: Music Perspectives from Latin America
2364
+
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Jairo Moreno, Sounding
2365
+
Latin Music, Hearing the Americas (Chicago: University of Chicago
2366
+
Press, 2023); William Sites, Sun Ra’s Chicago: Afrofuturism and the City
2367
+
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020); and Anna Gawboy,
2368
+
“Theosophy and Esoteric Musical Modernism,” in A Cultural History of
2369
+
Western Music, vol. 6, A Cultural History of Western Music in the Modern
2370
+
Age, ed. William Cheng and Danielle Fosler-Lussier (London:
2371
+
Bloomsbury, 2024).
2372
+
57. Eric Porter, “Jeanne Lee’s Voice,” Critical Studies in Improvisation 2, no.
2373
+
1 (2006), https://www.criticalimprov.com/index.php/csieci/article/
2374
+
view/53/185.
2375
+
58. Yvonne Rainer, Work 1961–1973 (Halifax: Press of the Nova Scotia
2376
+
College of Art and Design, 1974), 46. See also Carrie Lambert-Beatty,
2377
+
Being Watched: Yvonne Rainer and the 1960s (Cambridge, MA: MIT
2378
+
Press, 2008).
2379
+
59. For more on dance scores of the 1960s and approaches to preserving and
2380
+
reconstructing performance works, see Alison D’Amato, “Mobilizing the
2381
+
Score: Generative Choreographic Structures, 1960–Present” (PhD diss.,
2382
+
University of California, Los Angeles, 2015); Megan Metcalf, “Making
2383
+
the Museum Dance: Simone Forti’s Huddle (1961) and Its Acquisition by
2384
+
the Museum of Modern Art,” Dance Chronicle 45, no. 1 (February 2022):
2385
+
30–56; and D’Amato’s and Metcalf’s contributions to Hanna B. Hölling,
2386
+
ed., Object—Event—Performance: Art, Materiality, and Continuity since
2387
+
the 1960s (New York: Bard Graduate Center, 2022). The Merce
2388
+
Cunningham Trust has developed multimedia “dance capsules” to record
2389
+
and transmit the choreographer’s repertoire (https://www
2390
+
2391
+
2392
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 63
2393
+
.mercecunningham.org/the-work/dance-capsules/); another model
2394
+
based on the work of Lucinda Childs is the digital publication A Steady
2395
+
Pulse: Restaging Lucinda Childs, 1963–78, ed. Bill Bissell (Philadelphia:
2396
+
Pew Center for Arts and Heritage, 2015), http://danceworkbook.pcah
2397
+
.us/asteadypulse/.
2398
+
60. Diana Taylor, The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural
2399
+
Memory in the Americas (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003),
2400
+
16–33; and Peggy Phelan, “The Ontology of Performance:
2401
+
Representation without Reproduction,” in Unmarked: The Politics of
2402
+
Performance (New York: Routledge, 1993), 146.
2403
+
61. Knowles did not participate in Cage’s classes, but she absorbed detailed
2404
+
accounts from her partner Dick Higgins while he was enrolled. Perhaps
2405
+
fittingly in regard to Knowles’s ongoing engagement with food as
2406
+
material, her relationship with Cage developed rather through their
2407
+
mutual participation in the New York Mycological Society.
2408
+
62. As noted earlier, Higgins released re-editions of Luigi Russolo’s The Art of
2409
+
Noise, Cowell’s New Musical Resources, and Richard Huelsenbeck’s
2410
+
Dada Almanach through his publishing house, Something Else Press,
2411
+
alongside prolific defenses of his peers’ work (see notes 12 and 14
2412
+
above).
2413
+
63. See Allan Kaprow, “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock” (1958), among other
2414
+
writings included in Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, ed. Jeff Kelley
2415
+
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Dick Higgins,
2416
+
“Intermedia” (1965–66), republished with commentary by Hannah
2417
+
Higgins in Leonardo 34, no. 1 (2001): 49–54; and Dick Higgins,
2418
+
“Statement on Intermedia” (1966), in Dé-coll/age 6, ed. Wolf Vostell
2419
+
(1967), reprinted in Armstrong and Rothfuss, In the Spirit of Fluxus,
2420
+
172–73.
2421
+
64. This term was invented by George Maciunas to describe the event scores
2422
+
of George Brecht. See Brecht, letter to Maciunas, circa 1963, Hanns
2423
+
Sohm Archive, Staatsgalerie Stuttgart.
2424
+
65. Dick Higgins, “Exemplativist Manifesto” (1976), in A Dialectic of
2425
+
Centuries: Notes towards a Theory of the New Arts (New York: Printed
2426
+
Editions, 1978), 159; reprinted in Intermedia, Fluxus and the Something
2427
+
Else Press: Selected Writings by Dick Higgins, ed. Steve Clay and Ken
2428
+
Friedman (Catskill, NY: Siglio, 2018), 250. See also Harren, Fluxus
2429
+
Forms, 1–26.
2430
+
66. Nam June Paik, “Expanded Education for the Paperless Society” (1968),
2431
+
Radical Software 1, no. 1 (1970): 7–8. See also Astrit Schmidt-
2432
+
Burkhardt, Maciunas’ Learning Machines: From Art History to a
2433
+
Chronology of Fluxus (Berlin: Vice Versa Verlag, 2003). Harren, “Crux of
2434
+
Fluxus.”
2435
+
2436
+
2437
+
2438
+
2439
+
64 Introduction
2440
+
67. Lawrence Halprin, The RSVP Cycles: Creative Processes in the Human
2441
+
Environment (New York: G. Braziller, 1969).
2442
+
68. See Hal Foster, “The Crux of Minimalism,” in The Return of the Real: The
2443
+
Avant-Garde at the End of the Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2444
+
1996), 35–68; and Harren, "Crux of Fluxus.”
2445
+
69. These debates over the correct recitation of English poetry were deeply
2446
+
ideological and frequently deployed in service of ethnolinguistic
2447
+
nationalist aims (for example, pitting “proper” English pronunciation
2448
+
against regional variants and dialects). On enunciation contests in the
2449
+
United States, see Nancy Glazener, Literature in the Making: A History of
2450
+
U.S. Literary Culture in the Long Nineteenth Century (New York: Oxford
2451
+
University Press, 2016), 95–106; and in England, see Mark S. Morrisson,
2452
+
“Performing the Pure Voice: Elocution, Verse Recitation, and Modernist
2453
+
Poetry in Prewar London,” Modernism/modernity 3, no. 3 (1996):
2454
+
25–50. On prosody as a site for debates over national culture, see
2455
+
Meredith Martin, “Prosody Wars,” in Meter Matters: Verse Cultures of
2456
+
the Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Jason David Hall (Athens: Ohio
2457
+
University Press, 2011), 237–61; and Meredith Martin, The Rise and Fall
2458
+
of Meter: Poetry and English National Culture, 1860–1930 (Princeton,
2459
+
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012). On the rise of musical literacy in
2460
+
the nineteenth century, see Leon Botstein, “Listening through Reading:
2461
+
Musical Literacy and the Concert Audience,” 19th-Century Music 16, no.
2462
+
2, Music in Its Social Contexts (1992): 129–45.
2463
+
70. On deliberately prosaic works, see, for example, Charles Reznikoff’s
2464
+
Testimony: The United States (1885–1915): Recitative (1934–78),
2465
+
which was derived from archived courtroom transcripts; and the later
2466
+
work of Laura (Riding) Jackson prior to her renunciation of all her poetic
2467
+
works in 1938. See also John Hicks, “‘A Fairer House than Prose’: Verse
2468
+
and Its Others in American Poetry, 1850–1950” (PhD diss., Cornell
2469
+
University, 2012).
2470
+
71. Note also Al Filreis’s analysis of the Cold War context in which leftist
2471
+
poets of the 1930s were deliberately excluded from the canons of
2472
+
modernism that emerged from this 1950s version of modernism, which
2473
+
valued difficult, challenging poems whose political ideas—whether
2474
+
laudable or troubling—were obscured by the poetic impenetrability that
2475
+
only the heroic professional reader/interpreter could decipher. Mac Low
2476
+
is one of Filreis’s prime examples of an explicitly leftist poet who was
2477
+
excluded from mainstream poetry publications as a result of his too-
2478
+
transparent political commitments. Alan Filreis, Counter-Revolution of
2479
+
the Word: The Conservative Attack on Modern Poetry, 1945–1960
2480
+
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 18–30 and
2481
+
240–41.
2482
+
2483
+
2484
+
2485
+
2486
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 65
2487
+
72. Robert Frost, in a televised reading and discussion for Pittsburgh’s
2488
+
WQED, quoted in Newsweek, 30 January 1956, p. 56.
2489
+
73. Sidney Lanier, The Science of English Verse (New York: Scribner’s,
2490
+
1880). For the edition in archive.org, see https://archive.org/embed/
2491
+
scienceofenglish00laniiala.
2492
+
74. Harriet Monroe, “Rhythms of English Verse,” Poetry 3, no. 2 (November
2493
+
1913): 61–68; and continued in Poetry 3, no. 3 (December 1913):
2494
+
100–111. Full text issues of Poetry are available via the Modernist
2495
+
Journals Project: https://modjourn.org. Further resources on quantity
2496
+
are to be found under the word “quantity” in The New Princeton
2497
+
Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, in Derek Attridge, Well-Weighed
2498
+
Syllables: Elizabethan Verse in Classical Metres (New York: Cambridge
2499
+
University Press, 1974), and in the first four chapters of John Hollander,
2500
+
Vision and Resonance: Two Senses of Poetic Form (New York: Oxford
2501
+
University Press, 1975), 3–90.
2502
+
75. Amy Lowell, “The Rhythms of Free Verse,” Dial 64 (17 January 1918):
2503
+
51–56. Lowell is responding to reviews of the second edition of William
2504
+
Morrison Patterson’s The Rhythm of Prose: An Experimental
2505
+
Investigation of Individual Difference in the Sense of Rhythm (New York:
2506
+
Columbia University Press, 1917), in which he reverses, as a result of his
2507
+
work with Lowell, his earlier stance and acknowledges a difference
2508
+
between vers libre and prose.
2509
+
76. Kenneth Koch, “Fresh Air” (1955), in The New American Poetry,
2510
+
1945–1960, ed. Donald Allen (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2511
+
1960), 229–35; and Amiri Baraka, from “Black Art,” in William J. Harris,
2512
+
The LeRoi Jones / Amiri Baraka Reader (New York: Thunder’s Mouth
2513
+
Press, 1991), 219.
2514
+
77. In a more Futurist, technological approach to reconceiving the
2515
+
presentation of text in space and time, Robert Carlton Brown in 1930
2516
+
proposed an optical reading device that would, in Jerome McGann’s
2517
+
description, “provide the reader with the power to read in all directions
2518
+
and at any speed, to change type size and type-face at will, to leap
2519
+
forward or backward in the text: to browse, to speedread, to connect any
2520
+
and all parts of the text in any and all ways,” and that “prophecies as well
2521
+
the practical emergence of computerized word processing and
2522
+
hypertextual fields.” Jerome McGann, Black Riders: The Visible
2523
+
Language of Modernism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2524
+
1993), 81–87, here 84.
2525
+
78. Charles Olson, “Projective Verse” (1950) (Brooklyn, NY: Totem Press,
2526
+
1959). See also the discussion of Olson’s essay in Kotz, Words to Be
2527
+
Looked At, 113–14. In broader terms, Kotz (Words to Be Looked At,
2528
+
99–135) contrasts open-field compositions with the urbane collages of
2529
+
2530
+
2531
+
2532
+
2533
+
66 Introduction
2534
+
New York School poets in her discussion of John Ashbery’s The Tennis
2535
+
Court Oath.
2536
+
79. See the preface to Augusto de Campos, Poetamenos (São Paulo: Edições
2537
+
Invenção, 1973), where the poet explains how certain typographic
2538
+
features such as spacing and the use of multicolored type are intended to
2539
+
contribute to the compositions as visual works while also providing
2540
+
guidance for an oral performance of the texts.
2541
+
80. See Nancy Perloff, Explodity: Sound, Image, and Word in Russian
2542
+
Futurist Book Art (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2016); and the
2543
+
exhibition Concrete Poetry: Words and Sounds in Graphic Space, Los
2544
+
Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 28 March–30 July 2017, https://
2545
+
www.getty.edu/research/exhibitions_events/exhibitions/concrete
2546
+
_poetry/index.html.
2547
+
81. See Aleca Le Blanc, “The Material of Form: How Concrete Artists
2548
+
Responded to the Second Industrial Revolution in Latin America,” in Pia
2549
+
Gottschaller and Aleca Le Blanc, Making Art Concrete: Works from
2550
+
Argentina and Brazil in the Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros, exh.
2551
+
cat. (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2017), 1–24.
2552
+
82. Emmett Williams, ed., An Anthology of Concrete Poetry (New York:
2553
+
Something Else Press, 1967).
2554
+
83. Undergirding this in part was the popular mass media philosophy of
2555
+
Marshall McLuhan, who helped artists imagine the utopian potential of
2556
+
newly globalized intermedia communications uniting image, text, and
2557
+
sound. See Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of
2558
+
Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), The Medium Is the Massage: An
2559
+
Inventory of Effects (New York: Random House, 1967), and Verbi-Voco-
2560
+
Visual Explorations (New York: Something Else Press, 1967).
2561
+
84. Among modernists, one exception to this absence of the imperative
2562
+
mood would be the genre of the manifesto. See Mary Ann Caws,
2563
+
Manifesto: A Century of Isms (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
2564
+
Press, 2000); and Lawrence Rainey, Christine Poggi, and Laura Wittman,
2565
+
eds., Futurism: An Anthology (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2566
+
2009).
2567
+
85. It is telling to observe where Lucy Lippard’s Six Years, a genre-defining
2568
+
chronology of conceptual art, begins: with an event score by George
2569
+
Brecht. Lucy Lippard, Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object
2570
+
from 1966 to 1972 (New York: Praeger, 1972). See also Kotz, Words to
2571
+
Be Looked At; and Robinson, “From Abstraction to Model.”
2572
+
86. See, for example, Pavel Pys, “Momentary Arrest: Collecting
2573
+
Interdisciplinary Artworks,” Walker Reader, 21 May 2020, https://
2574
+
walkerart.org/magazine/momentary-arrest-collecting-interdisciplinary
2575
+
-artworks; Metcalf, "Making the Museum Dance”; Hölling,
2576
+
Object–Event–Performance; and Hanna B. Hölling et al., eds.,
2577
+
2578
+
2579
+
Gallope, Harren, and Hicks 67
2580
+
Performance: The Ethics and the Politics of Conservation and Care, vol. 1
2581
+
(London: Routledge, 2023).
2582
+
2583
+
2584
+
2585
+
2586
+
68 Introduction
2587
+
1. Morton Feldman: Intersection 3
2588
+
(1953)
2589
+
2590
+
Michael Gallope
2591
+
2592
+
2593
+
2594
+
2595
+
The score for Morton Feldman’s Intersection 3 (1953) is
2596
+
exemplary among Feldman’s graph pieces of the 1950s, and
2597
+
it stands as an early instance of experimental notation
2598
+
among figures of the postwar avant-garde. In this
2599
+
composition for solo piano, Feldman distributes numbers in
2600
+
seven horizontal staves, each three squares tall and
2601
+
spanning the length of an eleven-inch-long piece of graph
2602
+
paper (fig. 1.1). On the horizontal axis, one graph space
2603
+
equals one beat at 176 beats per minute (BPM). Vertically,
2604
+
the notation directs the performer to play the number of
2605
+
notes indicated by the numbers in each box. The three rows
2606
+
of boxes correspond to three registers: low, medium, and
2607
+
high. The exact pitches are left for the performer to decide.
2608
+
David Tudor gave the piece’s premiere. Tudor and
2609
+
Feldman had first met in 1950 through their mutual
2610
+
acquaintances, the modernist émigrés Irma Wolpe
2611
+
Rademacher and Stefan Wolpe. Feldman had studied
2612
+
composition with Stefan, and Tudor had studied piano with
2613
+
Irma. Tudor’s friendship with Feldman could be considered
2614
+
formative (at least indirectly) for nearly all the works in The
2615
+
Scores Project, for it was through Feldman that Tudor
2616
+
properly met John Cage. In the early 1950s, the association
2617
+
of Feldman, Cage, and Tudor, along with that of Earle Brown
2618
+
and Christian Wolff, became known as the New York School
2619
+
of composition, a group of independent-minded formalists
2620
+
interested in chance, indeterminacy, experimentalism, and
2621
+
graphic scores. They harbored philosophical interests that
2622
+
ranged from the classics of philosophy to occult theosophy,
2623
+
Jungian psychoanalysis, and Zen Buddhism. Not always
2624
+
2625
+
................
2626
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/01/ 69
2627
+
Fig. 1.1 Morton Feldman (American, 1926–87). Intersection 3 with a
2628
+
dedication to David Tudor, 1953. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor
2629
+
Papers, 980039, box 9, folder 1. Intersection 3 by Morton Feldman © 1962
2630
+
by C.F. Peters Corporation, New York. Permission by C.F. Peters
2631
+
Corporation. All rights reserved.
2632
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/012/
2633
+
2634
+
2635
+
2636
+
2637
+
70 Intersection 3
2638
+
welcome within traditional musical institutions and social
2639
+
circles, they also allied themselves with figures in the avant-
2640
+
garde wings of the visual arts, theater, and dance. From
2641
+
about 1951 through the early 1960s, Tudor functioned as
2642
+
their iconic virtuoso, premiering nearly one hundred avant-
2643
+
garde compositions to great acclaim (and frequent
2644
+
controversy) across the United States, Europe, and Japan.
2645
+
The origins of Intersection 3 can be traced to
2646
+
December 1950, when Feldman first devised an early form
2647
+
of indeterminate graph notation during a now legendary
2648
+
dinner consisting solely of wild rice at Cage’s “Bozza
2649
+
Mansion” apartment on the Lower East Side. Based on the
2650
+
descriptions and memories of this event, scholars now
2651
+
presume that the graph notation was some embryonic form
2652
+
of Feldman’s Projection 1 (1950) for solo cello, one of his
2653
+
earliest graph scores. In this score, there are three staves—
2654
+
the highest indicating sounds played as harmonics, the
2655
+
middle as pizzicato attacks, and the bottom as bowed or arco
2656
+
notes. Rhythm is read proportionally from left to right, and
2657
+
pitches are relatively open; Feldman implies a loose sense of
2658
+
register, with each horizontal line designating the lowest
2659
+
possible pitch (fig. 1.2).
2660
+
For his premiere of Intersection 3, Tudor addressed
2661
+
the openness of the graph notation by producing his first of
2662
+
many “realizations”—a handwritten, personalized
2663
+
performance score drafted on staff paper in relatively
2664
+
traditional notation. In this realization, Tudor interpreted
2665
+
each of Feldman’s boxed numbers (see fig. 1.1) as a
2666
+
punctuated attack and added his own grace notes and
2667
+
accessories. He translated the grid into traditional notation
2668
+
horizontally, the jumping chords spread across the page
2669
+
without bar lines (fig. 1.3).1 In the coming years, Tudor
2670
+
would create many such realizations to facilitate his
2671
+
performance of works compositions that broke with the
2672
+
familiar conventions of Western musical notation.
2673
+
The blistering tempo of 176 BPM makes Intersection
2674
+
3 especially challenging for performers. Tudor’s hands had
2675
+
2676
+
Gallope 71
2677
+
Fig. 1.2 Morton Feldman (American, 1926–87). Embryonic graph score,
2678
+
likely for Feldman’s Projection 1, early 1950s. Getty Research Institute,
2679
+
David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 9, folder 30. Projection 1 by Morton
2680
+
Feldman © 1961 by C.F. Peters Corporation, New York. Permission by C.F.
2681
+
Peters Corporation. All rights reserved.
2682
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/045/
2683
+
2684
+
2685
+
2686
+
2687
+
72 Intersection 3
2688
+
Fig. 1.3 David Tudor (American, 1926–96). Realization of Morton
2689
+
Feldman’s Intersection 3, 1953. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor
2690
+
Papers, 980039, box 9, folder 1. Intersection 3 by Morton Feldman © 1962
2691
+
by C.F. Peters Corporation, New York. Permission by C.F. Peters
2692
+
Corporation. All rights reserved.
2693
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/014/
2694
+
2695
+
2696
+
2697
+
2698
+
Gallope 73
2699
+
to jump wildly across the keys in a manner than can only be
2700
+
called virtuosic. During the 1950s, Tudor’s realization of this
2701
+
piece exemplified his self-proclaimed aesthetic of “non-
2702
+
continuity.”2 Each musical attack was jump-cut from the
2703
+
prior; no temporal or expressive linearity joined the vertical
2704
+
sonorities across time. Only numbers and squares, devoid of
2705
+
precise meaning or expressive power, guided Tudor’s
2706
+
choreography. Given that the music has no traditionally
2707
+
audible syntax like tonal harmony and melody, his style of
2708
+
performance exhibited a paradoxical drama for the audience:
2709
+
never playing from memory, and always focused squarely on
2710
+
the notation at the piano, he demonstrated his fidelity to the
2711
+
score in part because there was no language-like or
2712
+
traditionally expressive connection between these sounds.
2713
+
Tudor’s way of doing so was deadpan, unfazed; he had a flair
2714
+
for making the most mechanically disjointed sequence of
2715
+
sounds dramatic by maintaining a cool and dispassionate
2716
+
presence. He gave the audience numbered structures but
2717
+
delivered them with a magnetic stoicism.
2718
+
Both Feldman and Cage had concerns about leaving
2719
+
things open to the performer.3 If performers are given
2720
+
choices or multiple options, to what expectations would
2721
+
they be held? Would an indeterminate score enhance the
2722
+
performer’s agency at the expense of the composer and their
2723
+
ideas, or of any regulative principle of discipline? This worry
2724
+
was real for Cage and Feldman. In the case of a 1950s lead
2725
+
sheet in jazz, a performer is expected to improvise variations
2726
+
and manipulations of the head (the original melody and
2727
+
harmony of the source song), but in Feldman’s avant-garde
2728
+
works, improvisation was not the aim. Feldman wrote of his
2729
+
use of indeterminacy:
2730
+
2731
+
I had never thought of the graph as an art of
2732
+
improvisation, but more as a totally abstract sonic
2733
+
adventure. This realization was important because I
2734
+
now understood that if the performers sounded bad
2735
+
it was less because of their lapses of taste than
2736
+
2737
+
2738
+
74 Intersection 3
2739
+
because I was still involved with passages and
2740
+
continuity that allowed their presence to be felt.4
2741
+
2742
+
It was a tension that would haunt Cage’s
2743
+
indeterminate scores as well. A performer’s taste-driven
2744
+
improvisation was considered dangerous; instead, the
2745
+
performer should remain at one with the “abstract sonic
2746
+
adventure” of the work. Feldman took a measure of
2747
+
responsibility for ensuring against improvisation. In his
2748
+
works, the indeterminacy should not leave space for
2749
+
“passages and continuity” that would allow the work to
2750
+
lapse into anything considered traditionally expressive. An
2751
+
interest in guarding against expressive improvisations was
2752
+
reflected in the composer’s use of impersonal formalisms in
2753
+
his titles: projections, intersections, extensions, durations,
2754
+
structures, and the like.
2755
+
This is why it is all the more surprising to discover
2756
+
that the composer’s approach to composition was in fact
2757
+
quite nonsystematic, a quality that made him unusual among
2758
+
modernist composers at midcentury. In the early 1950s,
2759
+
composers such as Cage, Pierre Boulez, and Milton Babbitt
2760
+
made use of elaborate pre-compositional materials, some of
2761
+
which involved complex calculations, transformations,
2762
+
manipulations of tone rows, and matrices of numbers. By
2763
+
contrast, Feldman eschewed each of these methods; there
2764
+
are no intricate preconceived compositional procedures
2765
+
lying behind Intersection 3. Famously, Feldman claimed to
2766
+
be guided primarily by intuition. As Cage once affectionately
2767
+
remarked: “Isn’t that marvelous. Isn’t that wonderful. It’s so
2768
+
beautiful, and he doesn’t know how he made it.”5
2769
+
What influenced Feldman’s intuitionism? A creature
2770
+
of New York’s burgeoning downtown scene, in the early
2771
+
1950s he became closely acquainted with an array of
2772
+
abstract expressionist painters. Engaging in repeated happy
2773
+
hours with Cage at the storied Cedar Tavern in Greenwich
2774
+
Village, Feldman became friends with figures such as Philip
2775
+
Guston, Willem de Kooning, Franz Kline, and Jackson
2776
+
2777
+
2778
+
Gallope 75
2779
+
Pollock. The abstract expressionists were formalists, but in a
2780
+
way that was more or less consonant with Clement
2781
+
Greenberg’s conception of modernism, a position that
2782
+
emerged in Greenberg’s writings throughout the 1950s.
2783
+
That is, their pictures allowed paint to be paint—to let the
2784
+
medium speak its own sui generis language—while still
2785
+
maintaining a dialectical link to properties of the subject:
2786
+
expression, intuition, and so forth. In interviews and essays,
2787
+
Feldman’s formalism emphasizes a similarly Greenbergian
2788
+
conception of sound. In a way that was equally indebted to
2789
+
the work of one of his mentors, Edgard Varèse, Feldman was
2790
+
interested in the materiality of letting sounds be themselves
2791
+
and not imposing anything too systematic on them
2792
+
(including narrative, tonality, expressive intentions, or any
2793
+
kind of harmonic or melodic “representation” of emotion).
2794
+
In retrospect, Feldman saw vivid parallels between
2795
+
the compositional approach to the graph and Pollock’s
2796
+
“allover” approach to painting—both of which reflected a
2797
+
“visual rhythmic structure.” As he put it later in his career:
2798
+
2799
+
I realize now how much the musical ideas I had in
2800
+
1951 paralleled [Pollock’s] mode of working. Pollock
2801
+
placed his canvas on the ground and painted as he
2802
+
walked around it. I put sheets of graph paper on the
2803
+
wall; each sheet framed the same time duration and
2804
+
was, in effect, a visual rhythmic structure. What
2805
+
resembled Pollock was my “allover” approach to the
2806
+
time-canvas. Rather than the usual left-to-right
2807
+
passage across the page, the horizontal squares of
2808
+
the graph paper represented the tempo—with each
2809
+
box equal to a preestablished ictus; and the vertical
2810
+
squares were the instrumentation of the
2811
+
composition.6
2812
+
2813
+
Pollock and Feldman’s shared “allover” aesthetic
2814
+
holds for the composer’s traditionally notated works in a
2815
+
different manner, perhaps more outwardly. Many of
2816
+
Feldman’s subsequent works were quiet, long, and built
2817
+
2818
+
76 Intersection 3
2819
+
upon delicately undulating repetitions of colorful sonorities.
2820
+
In particular, the composer’s iconic use of a steadily quiet
2821
+
dynamic level—something that applies not often to
2822
+
Intersection 3 but to most of his other work—could be taken
2823
+
as a sonic analogue to Greenbergian flatness. His colleague
2824
+
and friend Earle Brown described it evocatively:
2825
+
2826
+
It strikes me that Feldman’s music is the music of an
2827
+
imagist. His music from the early fifties until now
2828
+
has—kind of—the same image as Rothko’s
2829
+
paintings, working with different colors and
2830
+
orchestrations of a singular and single image.7
2831
+
2832
+
The visuality of Feldman’s Greenbergian formalism
2833
+
could have philosophical significance in echoing the
2834
+
midcentury fashion for non-intentionality, expression, and
2835
+
the rejection of all that was tainted by traditional practices of
2836
+
composition. Feldman, like Pollock and many others at the
2837
+
time, had taken up an interest in Jungian psychoanalysis.
2838
+
And Cage himself once described Feldman’s interest in
2839
+
strikingly metaphysical terms as a deep unconscious flux
2840
+
akin to the cyclical and ephemeral temporality of nature. In
2841
+
his 1958 lecture “Indeterminacy,” Cage imaginatively fuses
2842
+
the two together by describing Feldman’s creativity as akin
2843
+
to a “dead” state or “deep sleep” devoid of the ego’s
2844
+
intentionality:
2845
+
2846
+
One evening Morton Feldman said that when he
2847
+
composed he was dead; this recalls to me the
2848
+
statement of my father, an inventor, who says he
2849
+
does his best work when he is sound asleep. The two
2850
+
suggest the “deep sleep” of Indian mental practice.
2851
+
The ego no longer blocks action. A fluency obtains
2852
+
which is characteristic of nature. The seasons make
2853
+
the round of spring, summer, fall, and winter,
2854
+
interpreted in Indian thought as creation,
2855
+
preservation, destruction, and quiescence. Deep
2856
+
2857
+
2858
+
2859
+
Gallope 77
2860
+
sleep is comparable to quiescence. Each spring
2861
+
brings no matter what eventuality.8
2862
+
2863
+
Feldman’s creative method may have been allied
2864
+
with a metaphysical drive toward quiescence, but the
2865
+
surrounding social world was loud. During performances of
2866
+
avant-garde works like Intersection 3, audiences and critics
2867
+
could become irate at the loss of reliability, and at the
2868
+
looming threat of fraudulence, at the general threat of
2869
+
abstract techniques, technologies, and new forms of art
2870
+
eliminating traditionally expressive goals and any shared
2871
+
criteria for judging good from bad. Scores such as
2872
+
Intersection 3 (alongside the occasional explanatory
2873
+
program note) confronted audiences and critics with a
2874
+
shocking emptiness: the impersonal yet idiosyncratic
2875
+
language of formalism. As a result, many people publicly
2876
+
debated what was left of the score’s normative boundaries.
2877
+
In the process, the thoughts expressed by these observers
2878
+
became much less perfunctory. Those with a conservative
2879
+
orientation toward music, such as the critic and musicologist
2880
+
Paul Henry Lang—who once described a 1960 concert by
2881
+
Tudor of avant-garde works as an “outrageous travesty”—
2882
+
could find themselves in an outright moral panic.9
2883
+
This confrontational reception was far from an
2884
+
accidental by-product of Feldman’s notational experiments.
2885
+
In a letter to Tudor, Feldman describes his compositional
2886
+
thinking around Intersection 3 in stark terms: he writes that
2887
+
it embodies an Artaud-like “blackness”—“like violently
2888
+
boiling water in some monstrous kettle” (fig. 1.4). If by
2889
+
“violently boiling water” Feldman is intentionally referring to
2890
+
the clamor he heard in Tudor’s legendary American premiere
2891
+
of Boulez’s wildly aggressive and dissonant Second Sonata
2892
+
(1948), one certainly hears echoes of it in Intersection 3.
2893
+
Like Boulez’s music, Feldman’s is impersonally formalized
2894
+
and disciplined, almost as if one is disciplining oneself into
2895
+
insanity. Maintaining those tensions—violence and
2896
+
impersonal order fused together in the form of a prestigious
2897
+
2898
+
2899
+
78 Intersection 3
2900
+
Fig. 1.4 Letter from Morton Feldman to David Tudor, 15 June 1953. Getty
2901
+
Research Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 53, folder 7. Courtesy
2902
+
of the Morton Feldman Estate.
2903
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/021/
2904
+
2905
+
2906
+
2907
+
2908
+
Gallope 79
2909
+
and sober event—captures a key theme of their aesthetic. It
2910
+
makes plain why Tudor was so important to the history of the
2911
+
midcentury avant-garde. His pianism kept the ship moving,
2912
+
and the legitimacy of his performances steadied it in a
2913
+
hurricane of norm-breaking. Composers, critics, and
2914
+
audiences came to trust him amid the chaos.
2915
+
2916
+
Notes
2917
+
2918
+
1. In this realization of Intersection 3, Tudor’s interpretation of low,
2919
+
medium, and high is somewhat loose; his chosen pitches don’t always
2920
+
fall within three mutually exclusive registers. He also used this realization
2921
+
for two commercial recordings, as well as for subsequent performances
2922
+
between 1954 and 1960.
2923
+
2. See Antonin Artaud, “Affective Athleticism,” in The Theater and Its
2924
+
Double (New York: Grove Press, 1958), 133–41.
2925
+
3. Feldman’s use of indeterminacy was a radical proposition when one
2926
+
recalls that Cage would not risk producing a thoroughly indeterminate
2927
+
score until his Winter Music (1957).
2928
+
4. Morton Feldman, “Liner Notes” (1962), in Give My Regards to Eighth
2929
+
Street (Cambridge, MA: Exact Change, 2000), 6.
2930
+
5. Cage, quoted in Feldman, “Liner Notes,” 5.
2931
+
6. Morton Feldman, “Crippled Symmetry” (1981), in Give My Regards to
2932
+
Eighth Street, 147.
2933
+
7. Earle Brown, interview by Peter Dickinson, 1 July 1987, Rye, New York,
2934
+
in CageTalk: Dialogues with and about John Cage, ed. Peter Dickinson
2935
+
(Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2006), 141.
2936
+
8. John Cage, “Indeterminacy” (1958), in Silence: Lectures and Writings by
2937
+
John Cage (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 37.
2938
+
9. Paul Henry Lang, “What Is Offered by the Electronic Age?,” New York
2939
+
Herald Tribune, 10 April 1960.
2940
+
2941
+
2942
+
2943
+
2944
+
80 Intersection 3
2945
+
2. John Cage: Concert for Piano
2946
+
and Orchestra (1958)
2947
+
2948
+
Michael Gallope
2949
+
Nancy Perloff
2950
+
2951
+
2952
+
2953
+
John Cage’s Concert for Piano and Orchestra (1958) is a
2954
+
unique work in his oeuvre because of its association not only
2955
+
with the composer himself but also with David Tudor’s
2956
+
extensive role in realizing and performing the part of the
2957
+
Concert intended for the solo pianist, which Cage titled the
2958
+
Solo for Piano. What, might we ask, is so unusual and
2959
+
unprecedented about the Concert’s Solo for Piano, and how
2960
+
do we understand its great appeal for Tudor?
2961
+
To begin, the Solo for Piano represented, at the time,
2962
+
Cage’s most elaborate and complex use of indeterminacy in
2963
+
performance. As he said in his lecture “Indeterminacy,” the
2964
+
second of three talks delivered under the title “Composition
2965
+
as Process” in Darmstadt, Germany, in September 1958:
2966
+
2967
+
A performance of a composition which is
2968
+
indeterminate of its performance is necessarily
2969
+
unique. It cannot be repeated. When performed a
2970
+
second time, the outcome is other than it was.
2971
+
Nothing is accomplished by such a performance,
2972
+
since that performance cannot be grasped as an
2973
+
object in time.1
2974
+
2975
+
To make compositions that reflected these ideals,
2976
+
Cage developed complex and visually striking notations that
2977
+
distanced performers from the intention-driven principles
2978
+
that had heretofore guided Western music. As James
2979
+
Pritchett has argued, the crucial principles of indeterminacy
2980
+
were (1) experimental—involving actions with unforeseen
2981
+
outcomes such that a performance “cannot be repeated” or
2982
+
“grasped as an object”; (2) purposeless—as in a
2983
+
2984
+
................
2985
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/02/ 81
2986
+
“purposeless process” that gives rise to “no matter what
2987
+
eventuality,” in which “nothing is accomplished”; and (3)
2988
+
unknowing—“by employing some operation exterior to [the
2989
+
performer’s] mind.”2 All were central to Cage’s work after
2990
+
1950, which was recognized for its experimental procedures
2991
+
that resulted in unique and unpredictable events, for its
2992
+
commitment to the “purposeless” quality of a music
2993
+
divorced from the aims of individual expression, and for its
2994
+
Zen-infused philosophy that grounded Cage’s compositional
2995
+
technique in the impersonal forces of nature.3
2996
+
If Cage’s philosophy is well-known, it is less often
2997
+
remarked that Tudor played a crucial role in the development
2998
+
of Cage’s turn to indeterminacy. Like Tudor and Morton
2999
+
Feldman (see chapter 1), the first meeting of Tudor and Cage
3000
+
was auspicious. On 17 December 1950, in New York, Tudor
3001
+
gave the U.S. premiere performance of Pierre Boulez’s
3002
+
Second Sonata (1948), a technically demanding piece that
3003
+
extended the dissonant atonality associated with composers
3004
+
such as Arnold Schoenberg and Anton Webern into an
3005
+
aggressive, large-scale composition. As a result of this
3006
+
premiere, Tudor began to develop a reputation as an
3007
+
exceptionally talented performer of difficult modern music, a
3008
+
reputation that would prove significant to the notoriety of
3009
+
the postwar musical avant-garde. Cage, who turned pages
3010
+
for Tudor at the premiere, was himself electrified by the
3011
+
performance. The following year, Cage, feeling inspired,
3012
+
embarked on a monumental solo piano work for Tudor titled
3013
+
Music of Changes.4 Recalling this early collaboration, Cage
3014
+
noted:
3015
+
3016
+
In all my works since 1952, I have tried to achieve
3017
+
what would seem interesting and vibrant to David
3018
+
Tudor. Whatever succeeds in the works I have done
3019
+
has been determined in relationship to him. . . . Tudor
3020
+
was present in everything I was doing. . . . At that
3021
+
time [1951], he was the Music of Changes.5
3022
+
3023
+
3024
+
3025
+
82 Concert for Piano and Orchestra
3026
+
Fig. 2.1 John Cage and David Tudor in the Tôkei-ji Temple Garden,
3027
+
Kanazawa, Japan, 1962. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor Papers,
3028
+
980039, box 160. Photographer: © Matsuzaki Kunitoshi. Courtesy of the
3029
+
John Cage Trust.
3030
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/133/
3031
+
3032
+
3033
+
3034
+
3035
+
Gallope and Perloff 83
3036
+
Tudor learned each section of Music of Changes as
3037
+
soon as Cage completed it, thus confirming that the notation
3038
+
was playable. The correspondence between the two offers a
3039
+
vivid chronicle of their collaboration, which fostered a long-
3040
+
lasting friendship (fig. 2.1). A letter from Tudor to Cage in
3041
+
late July 1951 questions and seeks to verify numerous
3042
+
technical details with respect to pedaling:
3043
+
3044
+
A few things I would like to check: . . . what are the
3045
+
exact functions you had in mind for the pedals . . . ;
3046
+
what about the inclusion in the pedals of the graces
3047
+
D + A p. 5 4s. [4th system]; are the 4 16ths top p. 6
3048
+
correct (I hope so!); to which group does the 2nd ½
3049
+
pedal belong p.7 3s. 1m., ffff or ppp-pppp . . . . I have
3050
+
revised the pedaling considerably, we’ll see how you
3051
+
like it.6
3052
+
3053
+
Cage’s reply, dated 5 August 1951 (fig. 2.2), shows
3054
+
not only the depth of his personal attachment (“Your letter
3055
+
has given me much pleasure, how much exactly I cannot say
3056
+
as I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve reread it”) but
3057
+
also his technical vigilance in addressing every detailed
3058
+
question Tudor had posed. From Tudor’s intimate yet
3059
+
assertive queries, one gets a sense that he was not merely a
3060
+
performer who was capable of serving as a dutiful interpreter
3061
+
but also keen on making significant musical choices of his
3062
+
own. In his preface to Music of Changes, Cage concluded
3063
+
that such a bond of trust had become necessary in order for
3064
+
Tudor to decipher the complex score he had devised: “It will
3065
+
be found in many places that the notation is irrational; in
3066
+
such instances the performer is to employ his own
3067
+
discretion.”7
3068
+
At the end of his August reply, Cage writes that a
3069
+
performance of Music of Changes should be guided by a
3070
+
principle of radical discontinuity: “The guiding principle for
3071
+
performance should be to act so that each action is itself
3072
+
(that means infinitely different and incomparable, single,
3073
+
never before or later to occur, so that each moment makes
3074
+
3075
+
84 Concert for Piano and Orchestra
3076
+
Fig. 2.2 Letter from John Cage to David Tudor, 1951. Getty Research
3077
+
Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 7, folder 7. Courtesy of the
3078
+
John Cage Trust.
3079
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/124/
3080
+
3081
+
3082
+
3083
+
3084
+
Gallope and Perloff 85
3085
+
history).”8 Cage’s statement is emblematic of his famous
3086
+
turn during this same year—1951—to chance operations. In
3087
+
preparing Music of Changes for Tudor, Cage created a chart
3088
+
of various sounds (single notes, two pitches, chords, larger
3089
+
constellations of pitches, and silences), a set of possible
3090
+
durations, and a chart of different dynamic values. A coin
3091
+
toss determined numbers that corresponded to hexagrams in
3092
+
the I Ching, the ancient Chinese divination text that was
3093
+
translated into English as Book of Changes. Such hexagrams
3094
+
in turn pointed to different combinations of sounds,
3095
+
durations, and dynamics that Cage would then sequence
3096
+
together in the score.
3097
+
While the compositional process was chance-based,
3098
+
Music of Changes is a fully notated score that remains
3099
+
relatively fixed from one performance to the next.9 As his
3100
+
chance-derived compositions developed in the 1950s, Cage
3101
+
expanded upon his aesthetic of non-intentionality by
3102
+
inventing a wealth of more or less indeterminate musical
3103
+
notations. For the Solo for Piano, he devised visually
3104
+
complex “graphs” (as he called them) that gave Tudor room
3105
+
to interpret imaginative hand-drawn diagrams, navigate
3106
+
ambiguous and often convoluted instructions, choose which
3107
+
graphs to play and when, and, in some instances, determine
3108
+
what to play by using secondary calculations or realizations.
3109
+
Some of the graphs for Solo for Piano were entirely new;
3110
+
others Cage reworked from scores from the 1950s, including
3111
+
the Music for Piano series (1952–56), Winter Music (1957),
3112
+
and Variations I (1958), all of which were written for Tudor.
3113
+
A sheet from the score shows two of Cage’s graphs for the
3114
+
Solo for Piano, each identified by a letter of the alphabet (D
3115
+
and Z) (fig. 2.3).
3116
+
In all, the Solo for Piano contains eighty-four graphs
3117
+
distributed across sixty-three pages, with some graphs
3118
+
stretching over two or three pages. Cage deliberately chose
3119
+
this multiplicity and maximal information to diffuse his own
3120
+
compositional agency and to produce a highly abstract and
3121
+
esoteric composition devoid of traditionally expressive
3122
+
3123
+
86 Concert for Piano and Orchestra
3124
+
Fig. 2.3 David Tudor’s copy of John Cage’s Solo for Piano that features
3125
+
Graphs D and Z, from Concert for Piano and Orchestra, 1957–58. Getty
3126
+
Research Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 176, folders 1, 2.
3127
+
Solo for Piano by John Cage © 1960 by Henmar Press Inc. Permission by
3128
+
C.F. Peters Corporation. All rights reserved.
3129
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/060/#fig-060-an
3130
+
3131
+
3132
+
3133
+
3134
+
Gallope and Perloff 87
3135
+
audible patterns and repetitions. The resultant stack of
3136
+
pages is also a complex physical object, like a thick deck of
3137
+
playing cards, only here the cards measure 11 by 17 inches.
3138
+
For this reason, the sheets are nearly impossible to view as a
3139
+
totality. Physically handling the score—shuffling it,
3140
+
recombining it, marveling at its many intricacies—these
3141
+
actions mirror, from a visual and tactile perspective, the
3142
+
indeterminacy of the work.
3143
+
This indeterminacy is reflected outside the solo part
3144
+
as well. A traditional score reads from left to right and can be
3145
+
bound in a fixed order like a book, but Cage’s Concert has no
3146
+
full orchestral score, only separate parts—the sixty-three
3147
+
pages of the Solo for Piano, thirteen instrumental parts, and
3148
+
a separate part for the conductor. Each instrumental part is
3149
+
twelve pages in length and features isolated note heads that
3150
+
indicate individual attacks, many of which are subject to
3151
+
extended techniques (for example, playing with open spit
3152
+
valves, disconnecting tuning slides, slapping keys, and
3153
+
singing or gurgling through an instrument). Cage left the
3154
+
timing open and allowed his performers to play any, all, or
3155
+
none of the notations in the score. Meanwhile, the
3156
+
conductor’s part calls for, among other instructions, circling
3157
+
one’s arms in order to keep clock time for an agreed-upon
3158
+
performance length. This role was first undertaken by the
3159
+
dancer and choreographer Merce Cunningham, who served
3160
+
as conductor for the premiere on 15 May 1958, at New
3161
+
York’s Town Hall (fig. 2.4).
3162
+
In a manner that mirrors his realizations for
3163
+
Feldman’s graph-paper scores of the early 1950s (see
3164
+
chapter 1), Tudor devised detailed realizations of the graphs
3165
+
in the Solo for Piano for the premiere, and he invented a
3166
+
visual notation that mixed traditional musical notation with
3167
+
his own customized system (see Score section). In preparing
3168
+
his realizations, Tudor began by making sketches of
3169
+
individual graphs in pencil, then copying them as polished
3170
+
performance scores onto small card stock manuscript paper.
3171
+
Finally, he assembled sequences of the graphs that would
3172
+
3173
+
88 Concert for Piano and Orchestra
3174
+
Fig. 2.4 Merce Cunningham conducting John Cage’s Concert for Piano
3175
+
and Orchestra at Town Hall, New York, NY, 15 May 1958. Courtesy of the
3176
+
Merce Cunningham Trust.
3177
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/134/
3178
+
3179
+
3180
+
3181
+
3182
+
Gallope and Perloff 89
3183
+
conform to agreed-upon lengths of time for a given
3184
+
performance. The result was a relatively conventional
3185
+
performance score with a determined length.
3186
+
In the Playback section for this chapter are a variety
3187
+
of items that correspond to Tudor’s realization of Cage’s
3188
+
Solo for Piano. Among them is a curated selection of five of
3189
+
Cage’s graphs—J, K, T, AY, and CE—which were chosen
3190
+
because they exemplified both Tudor’s pianistic virtuosity
3191
+
and Cage’s compositional and notational intricacy. In each of
3192
+
these items, Cage’s original graph is included along with its
3193
+
instructions, paired with Tudor’s corresponding realization
3194
+
for the 1958 premiere. (Tudor’s realization is notable for its
3195
+
almost theatrical foregrounding of his pianism.) By way of a
3196
+
simple animation, the esoteric notations are made accessible
3197
+
to users who may have only a limited familiarity with
3198
+
traditional Western musical notation. In addition to these
3199
+
five curated graphs, we have included in the Playback
3200
+
section a flipbook that features the entire performance of
3201
+
Tudor’s first realization. In real time as Tudor is performing,
3202
+
the flipbook simultaneously opens the corresponding graphs
3203
+
from Solo for Piano and from Tudor’s corresponding
3204
+
realization.
3205
+
Following the first performances of the Concert,
3206
+
Tudor produced a second and far sparser realization of the
3207
+
Solo for Piano in 1959. His process for creating this second
3208
+
realization was probably the most labor intensive of any for
3209
+
Cage’s scores. Tudor culled all the single attacks from his
3210
+
first realization and, using a second run of chance
3211
+
procedures, spread them out into a vast, deserted, nearly
3212
+
silent, and impersonal landscape of ninety minutes. He
3213
+
fastidiously transcribed these various attacks into a
3214
+
performance score in proportional notation, a notation
3215
+
without traditional meter or rhythm in which a designated
3216
+
length of a staff in space corresponds to a particular duration
3217
+
(in this case, each page was equal to one minute) (fig. 2.5).
3218
+
The result is much less virtuosic than the first realizations.
3219
+
Cage and Tudor used this second realization for their
3220
+
3221
+
90 Concert for Piano and Orchestra
3222
+
landmark recording Indeterminacy (1959), which featured
3223
+
stories read by Cage at varying speed alongside Tudor’s
3224
+
performance of the solo.
3225
+
These are two entirely different realizations of the
3226
+
same work—two among many other possible realizations. It
3227
+
is the kind of open-endedness that could easily cause
3228
+
philosophers to puzzle over the fundamental questions of a
3229
+
work’s ontology. In his landmark book Languages of Art
3230
+
(1968), the philosopher Nelson Goodman cites the most
3231
+
indeterminate of Cage’s graphs in the Solo for Piano to
3232
+
question the limits of a performer’s compliance to the
3233
+
symbolic capacities of the musical score.10 Goodman’s
3234
+
prescriptions for notation are exacting. His analysis of graph
3235
+
BB states that Cage’s instructions for measuring the
3236
+
distances of the five perpendiculars lack a precise unit and
3237
+
are thus too ambiguous to be properly notational. But
3238
+
philosophers were not the only ones to debate the work’s
3239
+
porous and ambiguous ontology. In newspaper reviews of
3240
+
the Concert, one can find middlebrow critics grappling with
3241
+
the oddity of such a piece. Reviewers, not always interested
3242
+
in the esotericism of chance procedures, often focused on
3243
+
the sensory impact of Cage’s works from the 1950s,
3244
+
associating it with violence, wrestling matches, psychosis,
3245
+
comedy, childlike outbursts, or even the advent of a nihilistic
3246
+
age.
3247
+
Far from being considered controversial reviews,
3248
+
however, such receptions of Cage’s works (including others
3249
+
featured in The Scores Project) could be read as a reflection
3250
+
of the powerful influence of Antonin Artaud’s “Theater of
3251
+
Cruelty” on both Tudor and Cage during the 1950s—an
3252
+
avant-garde aesthetic exemplified by the non-normative,
3253
+
violent, and destructive carnality of life, and remembered
3254
+
widely for its impact on performance art at midcentury.
3255
+
Artaud’s influence on their collaboration was significant. It
3256
+
came first through Tudor via his preparation for the American
3257
+
premiere of Boulez’s Second Sonata (a work that was itself
3258
+
inspired by Artaud), and was further developed by Cage in
3259
+
3260
+
Gallope and Perloff 91
3261
+
Fig. 2.5 David Tudor preparing his second realization of John Cage’s Solo
3262
+
for Piano, 1958. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039,
3263
+
box 158.
3264
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/131/
3265
+
3266
+
3267
+
3268
+
3269
+
92 Concert for Piano and Orchestra
3270
+
the dissonant landscape of Music of Changes, and through
3271
+
the multisensory disorder of the famous 1952 “happening”
3272
+
at Black Mountain College that came to be known as Theater
3273
+
Piece No. 1. With this in mind, we invite readers to
3274
+
contemplate these reviews not as evidence of the Concert’s
3275
+
history of controversial reception but as part of an extended
3276
+
ontology of a multifaceted work that is as often legislated
3277
+
and decided by critics, audiences, and various compliant or
3278
+
disobedient collaborators as it would be by a philosopher. In
3279
+
other words, the fact that people disagreed about the
3280
+
music’s significance is, in our view, essential to the identity
3281
+
of the indeterminate work. What makes it striking and
3282
+
successful is that the Concert continued to serve as a
3283
+
magnet for audiences, artists, dancers, and others alike.
3284
+
Beyond the newspaper reviews, we have included a
3285
+
variety of other materials pertinent to Cage’s Concert. This
3286
+
includes Tudor’s sketches for his realizations of each of the
3287
+
curated graphs as well as various sequences of the graphs
3288
+
for his versions of the first realization for performances of
3289
+
different lengths, many of which were designed to mesh
3290
+
structural clock time with dances by Merce Cunningham. (In
3291
+
particular, the Concert was performed between 1958 and
3292
+
1960 to accompany Cunningham’s vaudevillian work Antic
3293
+
Meet.) For these performances, Tudor, like Cage, re-
3294
+
sequenced his existing realizations of individual graphs to
3295
+
meet the agreed-upon time length for Cunningham’s dances.
3296
+
We have also included a selection of pertinent
3297
+
correspondence between Tudor, Cage, and M. C. Richards,
3298
+
who was Tudor’s partner during the period and a translator
3299
+
of Artaud’s writings into English. Indeed, this reminds us
3300
+
that given the varied audiences of Cage’s iconic works from
3301
+
midcentury, the Concert should be read not simply toward a
3302
+
pious view of what constitutes a correct performance of
3303
+
Cage’s work but in the full richness of its provocative
3304
+
multiplicity, and in a way that crosses the boundaries of
3305
+
different media.
3306
+
3307
+
3308
+
3309
+
Gallope and Perloff 93
3310
+
Notes
3311
+
3312
+
1. John Cage, “Indeterminacy” (1958), in Silence: Lectures and Writings by
3313
+
John Cage (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 39.
3314
+
2. Cage, “Indeterminacy,” 38–39. For Pritchett’s account, see James
3315
+
Pritchett, The Music of John Cage (Cambridge: Cambridge University
3316
+
Press), 76–78.
3317
+
3. For a critical view of Cage’s claims to have channeled the forces of
3318
+
nature, see Benjamin Piekut, “Chance and Certainty: John Cage’s
3319
+
Politics of Nature,” Cultural Critique, no. 84 (2013): 134–63.
3320
+
4. See, for example, Cage’s letter to Boulez on the day following the
3321
+
premiere of Second Sonata, in The Selected Letters of John Cage, ed.
3322
+
Laura Kuhn (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2016),
3323
+
139–41.
3324
+
5. Daniel Charles, For the Birds: John Cage in Conversation with Daniel
3325
+
Charles (Boston: Marion Boyars Publishers, 1981), 178.
3326
+
6. David Tudor to John Cage, late July 1951, in Martin Iddon, ed., John Cage
3327
+
and David Tudor: Correspondence on Interpretation and Performance
3328
+
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 18.
3329
+
7. John Cage, preface to Music of Changes (New York: Henmar Press,
3330
+
1961).
3331
+
8. John Cage to David Tudor, 1952, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 7,
3332
+
folder 7, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
3333
+
9. See Pritchett, Music of John Cage, 108.
3334
+
10. Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of
3335
+
Symbols (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968), 187–90.
3336
+
3337
+
3338
+
3339
+
3340
+
94 Concert for Piano and Orchestra
3341
+
3. Sylvano Bussotti: Five Piano
3342
+
Pieces for David Tudor (1959)
3343
+
3344
+
Michael Gallope
3345
+
3346
+
3347
+
3348
+
3349
+
Sylvano Bussotti’s Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor (1959)
3350
+
may be better known for its visual appearance than for its
3351
+
sound in performance. The striking notation for No. 4 (fig.
3352
+
3.1) was reproduced in print reviews of David Tudor’s
3353
+
performance, and two decades later it appeared at the front
3354
+
of the introduction to Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s
3355
+
encyclopedic Mille Plateaux (1980). Bussotti’s score is wild,
3356
+
inventive, and highly memorable; stretched across five
3357
+
staves, all the usual rules and parameters appear to have
3358
+
been scrambled. Ink pools inexplicably in various holes
3359
+
created by a tangle of curved lines. With so much called into
3360
+
question, by what rules and expectations might this
3361
+
composition be adequately performed?
3362
+
A percocious young composer when he wrote this
3363
+
score in 1959, Bussotti, like many European enthusiasts of
3364
+
contemporary music, was revolutionized by witnessing
3365
+
Tudor and John Cage promote their use of indeterminate
3366
+
scores at the Darmstadt Summer Course in 1958.
3367
+
Eschewing the high-modernist formalism associated with
3368
+
the more systematic procedures of the twelve-tone method,
3369
+
Bussotti set his imagination free and allowed the inky
3370
+
density of his score to explode in expressionistic directions
3371
+
in a way that upended the usual rules of interpretation. In the
3372
+
process, he deployed his talents as a visual artist in the
3373
+
media of drawing and painting and reimagined the score as
3374
+
an inventive form of visual art. He recast note heads, grace
3375
+
notes, accidentals, fermatas, and a handful of
3376
+
unconventional musical signs into imaginatively designed
3377
+
assemblages. The tangled, curvilinear forms at the center of
3378
+
3379
+
................
3380
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/03/ 95
3381
+
Fig. 3.1 David Tudor’s personal copy of No. 4 from Sylvano Bussotti’s Five
3382
+
Piano Pieces for David Tudor, with pencil annotations by Tudor, as found in
3383
+
loose pages from Bussotti’s Pièces de chair II, 1958–60. Getty Research
3384
+
Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 174, folder 3. Used by
3385
+
permission of Hal Leonard.
3386
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/159/#fig-159-am
3387
+
3388
+
3389
+
3390
+
3391
+
96 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3392
+
the score for No. 4 (see fig. 3.1) was a repurposed drawing of
3393
+
Bussotti’s from 1949 that he then superimposed onto an
3394
+
array of staves. The scores for his subsequent compositions,
3395
+
notably his chamber opera La Passion selon sade (1965),
3396
+
aggregated musical symbols into faces, images, inventive
3397
+
calligraphy, and labyrinthine diagrams. His graphic scores
3398
+
render the conventional transparency of musical notation
3399
+
opaque and spur the performer to experiment to find an
3400
+
acceptable method of execution.
3401
+
Bussotti philosophized in striking terms about these
3402
+
notational innovations. After traveling to Paris in 1956 to
3403
+
study composition, he met an important colleague of the
3404
+
philosopher Theodor Adorno, the young composer and critic
3405
+
Heinz-Klaus Metzger, who introduced him to the basics of
3406
+
Adorno’s dialectical method of negative critique, which
3407
+
emphasized the importance of fracturing historical
3408
+
techniques and forms. Under Metzger’s musical and
3409
+
intellectual influence, Bussotti began to describe his own
3410
+
compositional approach as a dialectical humanism, one that
3411
+
sought to preserve expression, excess, emotion, and
3412
+
sentimentality against the high-modernist fashions for
3413
+
formalism.1 A second influence was Antonin Artaud, whose
3414
+
“Theater of Cruelty” was popular and well-known among
3415
+
avant-gardists of the 1950s and ’60s, particularly Pierre
3416
+
Boulez, Tudor, and Cage.2 As scholars have noted,
3417
+
Bussotti’s expressionistic humanism also paralleled his
3418
+
unique relationship to his own homosexuality. Unlike other
3419
+
queer composers of the midcentury avant-garde who were
3420
+
more or less reserved about their sexuality—most famously
3421
+
Cage and Boulez—Bussotti was flamboyant and relatively
3422
+
open about his desires in ways that challenged social norms
3423
+
of the late 1950s.3
3424
+
In line with his expressionistic and visual approach to
3425
+
indeterminate scores, and at a marked remove from many of
3426
+
Morton Feldman’s and Cage’s experimental scores of the
3427
+
1950s, Bussotti’s Five Piano Pieces went so far as to try to
3428
+
surpass formalisms. The five pieces are solo piano extracts
3429
+
3430
+
Gallope 97
3431
+
from Pièces de chair II (1958–60), a larger cycle of twenty-
3432
+
seven songs for piano, baritone, female voice, and other
3433
+
instruments.4 The guidelines for decoding Five Piano Pieces
3434
+
span the traditionally determinate (Nos. 2 and 5) to the
3435
+
unusual and partially indeterminate (No. 1), to highly
3436
+
indeterminate scores that required a “realization,” or a
3437
+
customized performance score (Nos. 3 and 4). In this way,
3438
+
Five Piano Pieces ventures from determined procedures into
3439
+
the territory of intuition, inconsistency, and communicative
3440
+
immediacy through score-drawings that entice performers
3441
+
to compose their own work.5
3442
+
As if to compensate for this indeterminacy, Bussotti
3443
+
dedicated these pieces to Tudor, their uniquely entrusted
3444
+
performer, whose reputation had been internationally
3445
+
established by 1959. In a letter Bussotti wrote to Tudor and
3446
+
included with a copy of the scores he had written for the
3447
+
pianist, the composer addresses Tudor as someone already
3448
+
taken to be an “instrumental means” in his own right.6 In
3449
+
Bussotti’s view, Tudor was not a mere interpreter or pianist
3450
+
of the score. Rather, he was a unique technical mediator who
3451
+
could ensure ontological coherence for the work’s
3452
+
performance. Ronald Bogue has aptly described Bussotti’s
3453
+
positioning of Tudor as a post-human assemblage—a
3454
+
“Tudor-piano machine”—a singular being that brings
3455
+
together body, mind, technique, and technology (what
3456
+
Bussotti called a “Minotaurus of the pianistical
3457
+
mythology”).7 For Bussotti, this meant not only that the
3458
+
score could be delivered to Tudor with the utmost trust but
3459
+
also that the work likely had to be performed by Tudor in
3460
+
order to be considered complete. This collaboration might be
3461
+
productively framed as a form of queer intimacy between
3462
+
composer and performer. It was also a reassertion of closure
3463
+
or certainty in the face of an experimental notation that is
3464
+
otherwise open and indeterminate. In terms coined by the
3465
+
philosopher Nelson Goodman, when the allographic iterative
3466
+
score becomes wildly open-ended, it may help to have an
3467
+
autographic, certified performance.8
3468
+
3469
+
98 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3470
+
Among the indeterminate scores (Nos. 1, 3, and 4),
3471
+
No. 1 was notable for the imaginative decision to use a
3472
+
strange, tablature-like notation (fig. 3.2). In it, Bussotti
3473
+
repurposes the staff into a linear map indicating where the
3474
+
performer should place their fingers to touch or scrape the
3475
+
keys without depressing them. “MD” (mano destra) means
3476
+
right hand, and “MS” (mano sinistra) means left; the five
3477
+
lines of each staff refer to the five fingers of each hand,
3478
+
though, unlike traditional staff lines, these lines move up and
3479
+
down to indicate the motion of the fingers across the
3480
+
keyboard. Along the staff lines, the letters u and o indicate,
3481
+
respectively, attacks to be made with either the fingernail or
3482
+
finger pad. Most of the performance involves gliding the
3483
+
fingers along the surface of the keys. In accordance with
3484
+
Tudor’s practice at the time, his realization of this piece was
3485
+
a sight-reading tool to be used during performance; he
3486
+
essentially spaces out Bussotti’s notation so that it can be
3487
+
played cleanly without much preparation or any
3488
+
memorization. For his performance, Tudor wore fingerless
3489
+
gloves, an instruction Karlheinz Stockhausen would later
3490
+
incorporate into his glissando-heavy Klavierstück X (1961).
3491
+
On at least one occasion, Tudor’s gloves were
3492
+
sensationalized by the press for the supposed protection
3493
+
they gave the pianist’s hands, but in fact they allowed him to
3494
+
achieve a frictionless glide across the keys. There is also a
3495
+
unique indeterminacy to No. 1 that calls into question the
3496
+
traditional measure of pianistic skill; according to Bussotti’s
3497
+
typed instructions, if certain notes are accidentally struck,
3498
+
the composer will accept that as a compliant performance of
3499
+
the work.
3500
+
No. 3 involves far more indeterminacy (fig. 3.3). In
3501
+
fact, Tudor later recalled that his realization of No. 3 helped
3502
+
emancipate him from the use of musical notation
3503
+
altogether.9 From Tudor’s perspective, the pianist and
3504
+
composer Ferruccio Busoni’s writings on the limits of
3505
+
musical notation were a memorable point of reference.10 Its
3506
+
score is to be loosely read from left to right, with the vertical
3507
+
3508
+
Gallope 99
3509
+
Fig. 3.2 David Tudor’s personal copy of No. 1 from Sylvano Bussotti’s Five
3510
+
Piano Pieces for David Tudor, 1959. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor
3511
+
Papers, 980039, box 174, folder 2. Used by permission of Hal Leonard.
3512
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/154/#fig-154-e
3513
+
3514
+
3515
+
3516
+
3517
+
100 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3518
+
axis indicating an unspecified range of pitches on the piano,
3519
+
from low to high. There are some familiar symbols: a
3520
+
scattering of note heads, a few glissando-like arrows, about
3521
+
two dozen slurs that draw together coherent gestures, and a
3522
+
concluding fermata. But many elements are quite
3523
+
indeterminate: staff lines bleed and knock into one another
3524
+
or break down into interior fractures and shattered
3525
+
geometries, infecting the symbolic medium with unclear and
3526
+
befuddling messages.
3527
+
What is striking about No. 3 is that Tudor, who in the
3528
+
past was, without exception, carefully devoted to
3529
+
actualizing a version of what the composer specified, here
3530
+
quite freely made compositional decisions without much in
3531
+
the way of guidance from Bussotti’s score. One can see in
3532
+
Tudor’s own copy of the score that he had circled some key
3533
+
events in pencil (see fig. 3.3). As he loosely moves through
3534
+
the score from left to right, his gestures follow Bussotti’s
3535
+
typed instructions to play slurred events as a whole, but he
3536
+
also allows himself the freedom to rewind the horizontal axis
3537
+
and play events in sequence rather than all at once. That is,
3538
+
when choosing what to play, a bit of jumping around on
3539
+
Tudor’s part is expected, if not inevitable. Tudor’s inventive
3540
+
realization of No. 3 is a dramatic composition with some
3541
+
exquisite extended techniques (fig. 3.4), including the use of
3542
+
a glass slide on the piano strings in order to create glissandi,
3543
+
and the use of hands to hit the strings percussively. And yet,
3544
+
as inventive as it was, the practical goal of Tudor’s
3545
+
realization was no different than it had been for scores by
3546
+
Feldman and Cage: to create a repeatable, straightforward
3547
+
score that could be sight-read. It also had an important social
3548
+
function in that its repeatability could serve as a backbone of
3549
+
credibility for audiences and critics.
3550
+
At the time, Cage was exploring indeterminate
3551
+
notations in his Variations I (1958) that seemed to abandon
3552
+
all vestiges of traditional Western musical symbols (notes,
3553
+
rests, etc.) in favor of plastic transparencies that allowed
3554
+
performers to freely overlay patterns of lines and dots with
3555
+
3556
+
Gallope 101
3557
+
Fig. 3.3 David Tudor’s personal copy of No. 3 from Sylvano Bussotti’s Five
3558
+
Piano Pieces for David Tudor, with pencil annotations by Tudor, as found in
3559
+
loose pages from Bussotti’s Pièces de chair II, 1958–60. Getty Research
3560
+
Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 174, folder 3. Used by
3561
+
permission of Hal Leonard.
3562
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/159/#fig-159-aw
3563
+
3564
+
3565
+
3566
+
3567
+
102 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3568
+
Fig. 3.4 David Tudor (American, 1926–96). Tudor’s realization of No. 3
3569
+
from Sylvano Bussotti’s Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor, 1959. Getty
3570
+
Research Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 174, folder 2. Used
3571
+
by permission of Hal Leonard.
3572
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/158/#fig-158-r
3573
+
3574
+
3575
+
3576
+
3577
+
Gallope 103
3578
+
only minimal instructions on how to interpret them. By
3579
+
challenging the authority of determinate notation, Tudor
3580
+
understood Busoni and Cage to be thinking along the same
3581
+
lines: “There is a paragraph in Busoni which speaks of
3582
+
notation as an evil separating musicians from music, and I
3583
+
think everyone should know that this is true. . . . Notation is
3584
+
an invention of the devil, and when I became free of it,
3585
+
through pieces like Cage’s Fontana Mix and Music Walk, and
3586
+
later Bussotti’s Piano Piece for David Tudor No. 3, it really did
3587
+
a lot for me.”11 In his realization for No. 3, Tudor’s
3588
+
relationship with Bussotti’s notation was almost intuitive; in
3589
+
assembling it, he more freely drew from extended
3590
+
techniques that he had begun to practice in recent years.
3591
+
Of the three indeterminate scores in Five Piano
3592
+
Pieces, the most complex and challenging is No. 4 (see fig.
3593
+
3.1). Contrary to some of the existing commentary on this
3594
+
composition, Bussotti did not leave the realization entirely up
3595
+
to Tudor’s discretion. Superimposed on the staves is the
3596
+
curvilinear drawing Bussotti had made in 1949: a mixture of
3597
+
dots, regions, and squiggly lines. This is the central notation
3598
+
of what one plays. The staves’ five clefs indicate loose
3599
+
ranges of the attacks, while the second layer of five staff
3600
+
fragments on the far left (numbered 1 through 5) provide
3601
+
supplementary material about the kinds of sounds to be
3602
+
played. Staves 1, 2, and 4 specify various kinds of attacks
3603
+
(Staff 1: muted, muffled, or pizzicato; Staff 2: muted
3604
+
beating on the keys or the keyboard cover; and Staff 4: five
3605
+
kinds of glissandi in the piano—two with fingernails, two
3606
+
with the pads of the fingers, and one oscillating glissando).
3607
+
Staff 5 indicates the pitch of that staff’s one attack: in an
3608
+
alto clef, it is A 440 (the A above middle C). Staff 3 is the
3609
+
most precise in its demands, asking the performer to
3610
+
calculate values for the parameters of each attack (sequence
3611
+
in time, frequency, timbre, duration, and intensity) based in
3612
+
measured distances between the drawing’s dark spots and
3613
+
the angular staff lines. Cage pioneered this calculation
3614
+
technique in Variations I and the Solo for Piano (1958; see
3615
+
3616
+
104 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3617
+
chapter 2), and Bussotti had learned of it during his visit to
3618
+
Darmstadt in 1958 (a debt he acknowledges in his
3619
+
instructions). Finally, a large 6 labels a bracket that encloses
3620
+
the individual five clefs as a totality. Lest one think all these
3621
+
specifications would be an impossible headache to play
3622
+
accurately, Bussotti’s typed instructions explain that when
3623
+
actually performing the piece, “the pianist is authorized to
3624
+
automatically perform ‘what the drawing inspires,’” without
3625
+
worrying about specific correspondences.12
3626
+
Tudor eschewed Bussotti’s instruction to
3627
+
“automatically perform” by following the drawing intuitively.
3628
+
Instead, he dutifully realized Bussotti’s instructions for Staff
3629
+
3 through a list of calculations in a way that parallels the
3630
+
kinds of tables he made for scores by Cage and used this list
3631
+
to create a realization for No. 4. The penciled annotations on
3632
+
Tudor’s copy of the score (see fig. 3.1) show two vertical
3633
+
lines drawn at the vertices of the “sequenza” line from Staff
3634
+
3, as well as a series of check marks written over black dots,
3635
+
evidence of Tudor checking off” various attacks as he
3636
+
recorded their distance from each of the lines in Staff 3.
3637
+
After producing a seven-sheet-long set of values for attacks
3638
+
corresponding to these black dots, Tudor then recorded
3639
+
them on seven sheets of his customary short staff paper,
3640
+
producing a playable realization (fig. 3.5).
3641
+
Completing this realization at one of the busiest
3642
+
times of his career, Tudor seemed not to have had time to
3643
+
finish learning it for performance.13 In the live recording,
3644
+
likely made in 1960 at the Living Theatre in New York, Tudor
3645
+
is relatively loose in the timings and seems to have
3646
+
performed only the first four of the seven sheets he realized
3647
+
for No. 4. According to Stockhausen, Bussotti had approved
3648
+
the possibility of a partial performance of No. 4 the year prior
3649
+
in Darmstadt.14
3650
+
The Bussotti–Tudor collaboration could be said to
3651
+
serve as an ironic counterexample to Umberto Eco’s open
3652
+
work—a concept that Eco coined in 1962 to mark the
3653
+
opening up of traditionally determinate forms of notation.15
3654
+
3655
+
Gallope 105
3656
+
Fig. 3.5 David Tudor’s realization of No. 4 from Sylvano Bussotti’s Five
3657
+
Piano Pieces for David Tudor, 1959. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor
3658
+
Papers, 980039, box 174, folder 2. Used by permission of Hal Leonard.
3659
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/157/#fig-157-f
3660
+
3661
+
3662
+
3663
+
3664
+
106 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3665
+
For it is not as though the traditional division of labor
3666
+
between composer, score, and performer has entirely broken
3667
+
down into a wide field of multiplicities and open-ended
3668
+
structures. Rather, it is more precise to say the ontological
3669
+
boundaries of Bussotti’s “work” are displaced onto
3670
+
nonnormative spheres. The score has been transformed
3671
+
from normative symbolic indications into an object of visual
3672
+
perplexity and wonder on its own, supplemented by
3673
+
Bussotti’s textual scaffolding. The resultant sonic
3674
+
performance is personally entrusted to a single performer
3675
+
whose job it is to stage and mysteriously decode the esoteric
3676
+
quasi-language of the score.
3677
+
It is both a curious detail of cultural history and a
3678
+
philosophically rich fact that audiences reacted with
3679
+
puzzlement, bemusement, and distress upon witnessing
3680
+
Tudor’s performances. One must remember that many
3681
+
audience members in 1959 strongly expected performers of
3682
+
classical music to play from notation that told the performer
3683
+
exactly what notes to play. What the philosopher Stanley
3684
+
Cavell worried in 1967 was a risk of “fraudulence” in
3685
+
modernist composition was a real concern.16 During the
3686
+
premiere of Five Piano Pieces at Darmstadt in 1959,
3687
+
Stockhausen refused audience requests for repeat
3688
+
performances, which were purportedly made in order to
3689
+
challenge the legitimacy of Tudor’s interpretation.17 In this
3690
+
manner, the audiences found ways to improvise legislations
3691
+
of the nonnormative boundaries of the composition.
3692
+
Other responses were more playful and associative.
3693
+
The music critic Ed Wallace, writing for the New York World-
3694
+
Telegram and The Sun, published a review of Tudor’s 1960
3695
+
performance of Five Piano Pieces at the Living Theatre in
3696
+
New York. The bemused review recasts the concert as the
3697
+
vernacular equivalent of a wrestling match. Wallace likens
3698
+
the violence of Tudor’s extended techniques to that of a
3699
+
fighter exacting revenge on the domestic piano (which the
3700
+
critic associates with his own childhood guilt over not
3701
+
practicing). Wallace, somewhat enthusiastically, reproduces
3702
+
3703
+
Gallope 107
3704
+
the score for No. 4 in the pages of the World-Telegram, with
3705
+
the emendations “What arrives on paper looks like a mixture
3706
+
of blackstrap [molasses] and soot, applied with a defective
3707
+
spray gun” and “Way out cats will recognize this as the piano
3708
+
piece written for David Tudor by Sylvano Bussotti. Beginners
3709
+
should remember to wear gloves.”18 These spirited
3710
+
middlebrow responses complicate any straightforward
3711
+
displacement of this multiplicity onto the authority of
3712
+
Bussotti’s and Tudor’s personalities alone. Like the event
3713
+
scores that became a popular format after 1960 and would
3714
+
eschew the traditional coordinates of musical performance
3715
+
altogether, the messiness and ontological disunity of the
3716
+
result acquires significance in the moment of its social
3717
+
impact. Five Piano Pieces elicited often contentious and
3718
+
unpredictable reactions that gave it meaning, while the
3719
+
score functioned as the central provocateur.
3720
+
We might also consider a contrasting performance
3721
+
by the pianist Steffen Schleiermacher.19 Schleiermacher
3722
+
begins by pounding on the outside of the piano before
3723
+
moving on to the keyboard for a set of repeated tone
3724
+
clusters. He then strums on the wound bass strings, then
3725
+
returns to the keyboard to play additional clusters, this time
3726
+
in a more focused register. Following Bussotti’s indication
3727
+
via the bracket labeled “6” that the piece is to be interpreted
3728
+
holistically and the performer should not worry about a
3729
+
precise realization of individual inscriptions, the individual
3730
+
attacks from Schleiermacher’s hands do not correspond
3731
+
one-to-one to blocks of black ink. Instead, they unfold in a
3732
+
rougher, mimetic correspondence, as if the interior
3733
+
complexity of the score were a direct transduction—but not
3734
+
a symbolic encoding—of what was truly in the composition.
3735
+
Or, conversely, since the symbolic medium of notation has
3736
+
broken down in Bussotti’s hands, one might interpret it as an
3737
+
impossible goal of what might be achieved if an interpreter
3738
+
knew exactly what Bussotti intended to express.
3739
+
Alternatively, perhaps it is neither, and instead is something
3740
+
3741
+
3742
+
3743
+
108 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3744
+
more akin to a negative provocation, a death of musical
3745
+
literacy displayed in visual terms.
3746
+
3747
+
Notes
3748
+
3749
+
1. Bussotti wrote in a prefatory note to his work Due voci (1958) that his
3750
+
approach to music represented a “dialectical rebellion of the humanistic
3751
+
attitude in the man who writes music, against the stiff aridity of
3752
+
systems.” Quoted in Erik Ullman, “The Music of Sylvano Bussotti,”
3753
+
Perspectives of New Music 34, no. 2 (1996): 186–201.
3754
+
2. See Antonin Artaud, The Theater and Its Double (New York: Grove Press,
3755
+
1958). Bussotti in fact set Artaud’s texts to music several times over the
3756
+
course of his career. See Piero Carreras, “La Passion Selon Sade, Opera
3757
+
d’Arte Totale,” Scenari, 16 June 2016, https://www.mimesis-scenari.it/
3758
+
2016/06/16/la-passion-selon-sade-opera-darte-totale/.
3759
+
3. See Paul Attinello, “Bussotti, Sylvano,” in The Queer Encyclopedia of
3760
+
Music, Dance, and Musical Theater, ed. Claude J. Summers (Jersey City,
3761
+
NJ: Cleis Press, 2004), 37–38; and David Osmond-Smith and Paul
3762
+
Attinello, “Gay Darmstadt: Flamboyance and Rigour at the Summer
3763
+
Courses for New Music,” in Other Darmstadts, ed. Paul Attinello,
3764
+
Christopher Fox, and Martin Iddon (Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge, 2007),
3765
+
105–14.
3766
+
4. For a larger discussion of this cycle, see Paul Attinello, “Hieroglyph,
3767
+
Gesture, Sign, Meaning: Bussotti’s Pièces de chair II,” in Perspectives in
3768
+
Systematic Musicology, ed. Roger A. Kendall and Roger W. H. Savage
3769
+
(Los Angeles: Department of Ethnomusicology, UCLA, 2005), 219–27.
3770
+
5. Included in The Scores Project is Tudor’s typewritten copy of Bussotti’s
3771
+
original instructions in Italian for the score.
3772
+
6. Sylvano Bussotti to David Tudor, 22 May 1959, David Tudor Papers,
3773
+
980039, box 174, folder 3 (original in Series III), Getty Research
3774
+
Institute, Los Angeles (hereafter cited as David Tudor Papers).
3775
+
7. Ronald Bogue, “Scoring the Rhizome: Bussotti’s Musical Diagram,”
3776
+
Deleuze Studies 8, no. 4 (2014): 479. For Bussotti’s quotation, see David
3777
+
Tudor Papers, box 174, folder 3 (original in Series III).
3778
+
8. For a discussion of the terms autographic and allographic, see Nelson
3779
+
Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols
3780
+
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968). This dialectic whereby artists
3781
+
reassert control over their work is one that perennially recurs in Cage’s
3782
+
career. See Benjamin Piekut, “Murder by Cello: Charlotte Moorman
3783
+
Meets John Cage,” in Experimentalism Otherwise: The New York Avant-
3784
+
Garde and Its Limits (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011),
3785
+
140–76; and Ryan Dohoney, “John Cage, Julius Eastman, and the
3786
+
Homosexual Ego,” in Tomorrow Is the Question: New Directions in
3787
+
3788
+
3789
+
Gallope 109
3790
+
Experimental Music Studies, ed. Benjamin Piekut (Ann Arbor: University
3791
+
of Michigan Press, 2014).
3792
+
9. David Tudor, in David Tudor and Victor Schonfeld, “From Piano to
3793
+
Electronics,” Music and Musicians 20 (August 1972): 24–6.
3794
+
10. See Ferruccio Busoni, Sketch of a New Aesthetic of Music, trans.
3795
+
Theodore Baker (1907; repr., New York: G. Schirmer, 1911). See also Erin
3796
+
Knyt, “Between Composition and Transcription: Ferruccio Busoni and
3797
+
Musical Notation,” Twentieth-Century Music 11, no. 1 (2014): 37–61.
3798
+
11. Tudor, “From Piano to Electronics,” 24.
3799
+
12. Sylvano Bussotti, Performance notes for Pièces de chair II, 1958–59, pp.
3800
+
11–12, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 174, folder 3.
3801
+
13. In correspondence with his partner M. C. Richards, it is evident that
3802
+
Tudor, on occasion, had insufficient time to prepare compositions he was
3803
+
expected to play. With no reliable employment, he had to try to earn a
3804
+
steady income through performance alone, which was often a challenge
3805
+
for him during the 1950s. For Tudor’s letters to M. C. Richards, see Mary
3806
+
Caroline Richards Papers, 960036, box 26, box 114, Getty Research
3807
+
Institute, Los Angeles. For Richards’s letters to Tudor, see David Tudor
3808
+
Papers, box 59, folder 5–10, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
3809
+
14. In Stockhausen’s account, Tudor had asked Bussotti if a partial
3810
+
performance of No. 4 would be adequate, and Bussotti agreed. See
3811
+
Martin Iddon, New Music at Darmstadt: Nono, Stockhausen, Cage, and
3812
+
Boulez (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 243.
3813
+
15. Umberto Eco, The Open Work, trans. Anna Cancogni (Cambridge, MA:
3814
+
Harvard University Press, 1989).
3815
+
16. Stanley Cavell, “Music Discomposed” (1967), in Must We Mean What
3816
+
We Say (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 180–212.
3817
+
17. The reviewer’s testimony is available in Ernst Thomas, “Klänge für das
3818
+
Auge? Gefährliche Doktrinen auf den Darmstädter Ferienkursen,”
3819
+
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1 September 1959). For the anecdote
3820
+
related to the audience stirring at the Darmstadt premiere of Bussotti’s
3821
+
Five Piano Pieces, see Amy Beal, New Music, New Allies: American
3822
+
Experimental Music in West Germany from the Zero Hour to Reunification
3823
+
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 110. For a second
3824
+
discussion of the reception of the Darmstadt performance, see Iddon,
3825
+
New Music at Darmstadt, 248–49.
3826
+
18. Ed Wallace, “Above Ground Test Deactivates Piano,” New York World-
3827
+
Telegram and The Sun, 5 April 1960.
3828
+
19. Steffen Schleiermacher, pianist, “Four Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3829
+
(1959)” by Sylvano Bussotti, track 1 on Fluxus Piano, Musikproduktion
3830
+
Dabringhaus und Grimm, 2015, compact disc.
3831
+
3832
+
3833
+
3834
+
3835
+
110 Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor
3836
+
4. Benjamin Patterson: Paper
3837
+
Piece (1960)
3838
+
3839
+
George E. Lewis
3840
+
3841
+
3842
+
3843
+
3844
+
Benjamin Patterson’s Paper Piece (1960) is said to have
3845
+
begun as a letter posted to his family from Germany, where
3846
+
he was beginning to take part in the first pre-Fluxus
3847
+
experiments in performance. Over the years, the piece has
3848
+
become one of the most widely performed Fluxus works.1
3849
+
In Paper Piece, performers create a variety of sounds
3850
+
using bags and loose sheets made of various types of paper.
3851
+
At a 2011 seminar at Columbia University, Patterson
3852
+
presented the origin story for the work:
3853
+
3854
+
Paper Piece was a reaction to another Stockhausen
3855
+
event (thank you Karlheinz!). As I remember, it was
3856
+
Kontakte, the premiere, for piano and two
3857
+
percussionists. David Tudor was the pianist, and he
3858
+
told me afterwards that it had something like 120
3859
+
hours of rehearsal for this piece to get it all together.
3860
+
And I just couldn’t believe that something had to be
3861
+
rehearsed that much and would leave me so . . .
3862
+
underwhelmed.2
3863
+
3864
+
Patterson’s 1962 collection, Methods and
3865
+
Processes, presents a set of text pieces that have historically
3866
+
been grouped under the heading “event scores,” a format
3867
+
said to have been pioneered in the early 1960s by artists
3868
+
including, in particular, La Monte Young, Yoko Ono, and
3869
+
George Brecht.3 Paper Piece is not an event score, however,
3870
+
but a “text score” that functions much like a conventional
3871
+
score, in which notations are provided to guide performers in
3872
+
realizing the composer’s intent.
3873
+
3874
+
3875
+
3876
+
................
3877
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/04/ 111
3878
+
Between 1959 and 1964, Patterson was in a period
3879
+
of rapid growth. Paper Piece, conceived at the start of that
3880
+
period, may be classified as an aspect of Patterson’s work
3881
+
that focused on new techniques for acoustic instruments, as
3882
+
did his Variations for Double-Bass (1961, rev. 1962), which
3883
+
combines performative stances with extended string
3884
+
techniques (figs. 4.1, 4.2) to create a kind of early intermedia
3885
+
avant la lettre de Fluxus, and his Duo for Voice and a String
3886
+
Instrument (1961), which combines an even more extensive
3887
+
catalog of sounds and string techniques with intricate
3888
+
graphic elements (fig. 4.3).4
3889
+
Paper Piece stands out among these works because,
3890
+
while it specifies sounds and techniques as Patterson’s later
3891
+
pieces do, rather than exploring unusual playing techniques
3892
+
for traditional musical instruments, it instrumentalizes a
3893
+
commonly found material—paper—for which no extended
3894
+
techniques had ever been documented. Moreover, the work
3895
+
provides strong suggestions rather than exacting
3896
+
specifications as to instrumentation, duration, and
3897
+
performance process, and it is one of the few Patterson
3898
+
scores from this period that explicitly calls for improvisation:
3899
+
“Dynamics should be improvised within the natural borders
3900
+
of the approximate ppp of the ‘Twist’ and the fff of the
3901
+
‘Pop!’” (fig. 4.4).5
3902
+
Patterson’s earliest pieces, including Paper Piece,
3903
+
often comprised three main elements:
3904
+
3905
+
(1) a set of materials, physical and/or temporal;
3906
+
(2) performance instructions and process
3907
+
elaboration; and
3908
+
(3) limits and ending conditions.
3909
+
3910
+
At the aforementioned Columbia seminar, Patterson
3911
+
noted the advantages of using paper in his work: “It was a
3912
+
material that was readily available anywhere, everywhere in
3913
+
the world, and it came in all types and shades, dimensions,
3914
+
and had a great variety of acoustic possibilities, from crystal
3915
+
paper, tissue paper, all the way to heavy cardboard, paper
3916
+
3917
+
112 Paper Piece
3918
+
Fig. 4.1 Benjamin Patterson (American, 1934–2016). Variations for
3919
+
Double-Bass, 1961, rev. 1962. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown
3920
+
Papers, 890164, box 39, folder 33. © The Estate of Benjamin Patterson.
3921
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/217/
3922
+
3923
+
3924
+
3925
+
3926
+
Lewis 113
3927
+
Fig. 4.2 Benjamin Patterson performing Variations for Double-Bass, at
3928
+
Kleinen Sommerfest: Après John Cage, Galerie Parnass, Wuppertal, West
3929
+
Germany, 9 June 1962. The Gilbert and Lila Silverman Fluxus Collection
3930
+
Gift. © The Estate of Benjamin Patterson. Digital Image © The Museum of
3931
+
Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY.
3932
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/232/
3933
+
3934
+
3935
+
3936
+
3937
+
114 Paper Piece
3938
+
Fig. 4.3 Benjamin Patterson (American, 1934–2016). Duo for Voice and a
3939
+
String Instrument, 1961. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers,
3940
+
890164, box 39, folder 32. © The Estate of Benjamin Patterson.
3941
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/215/#fig-215-f
3942
+
3943
+
3944
+
3945
+
3946
+
Lewis 115
3947
+
Fig. 4.4 Benjamin Patterson (American, 1934–2016). Printed score of
3948
+
Paper Piece in English, 1960. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers,
3949
+
890164, box 39, folder 33. © The Estate of Benjamin Patterson.
3950
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/197/
3951
+
3952
+
3953
+
3954
+
3955
+
116 Paper Piece
3956
+
bags, and so forth.” The number and types of materials are
3957
+
precisely given in the score, but some room is left for
3958
+
performer choice and foraging. Thus, a performance of the
3959
+
work could be considered site-specific, as it might depend
3960
+
on the kinds of paper available in a given area.
3961
+
The score calls for the following materials:
3962
+
3963
+
15 sheets of paper per performer approximate size of
3964
+
standard newspaper, . . . tissue paper, light
3965
+
cardboard, colored, printed or plain.
3966
+
3 paper bags per performer
3967
+
quality, size and shape varied6
3968
+
3969
+
The score evinces a decided preference for diversity
3970
+
of paper (“quality varied”), which would in turn produce a
3971
+
corresponding diversity of timbres. That said, the actual
3972
+
temporal/structural course of the development of timbre is
3973
+
left to the performer.
3974
+
As the number of sheets and bags to be used is
3975
+
strictly delineated, so are the particular techniques, for
3976
+
which descriptions and nomenclature are provided, as in this
3977
+
example:
3978
+
3979
+
“BREAK” - opposite edges of the sheet are grasped
3980
+
firmly and sharply jerked apart7
3981
+
3982
+
The score offers some practical advice, suggesting a
3983
+
process of preparation in which the performance method for
3984
+
each piece of paper is selected in advance and written on the
3985
+
sheet. However, the composer also allows for interpretive
3986
+
liberties, allowing the sequence of sounds to be varied
3987
+
within each performance. The example Patterson gives is a
3988
+
simple retrograde: RUB, SCRUB, TWIST could become
3989
+
TWIST, SCRUB, RUB:
3990
+
3991
+
Each performer will have previously selected and
3992
+
arranged his materials and sequence of events.
3993
+
Arrangement of sequence may concern not only the
3994
+
general order - sheet No. 1 “Shake”, “Break”, “Tear”,
3995
+
3996
+
3997
+
Lewis 117
3998
+
No. 2 “Rub”, “Scrub”, “Twist”, No. 3 “Poof”, “Pop!”
3999
+
- the inner order may also be considered “Twist”,
4000
+
“Scrub”, “Rub”.8
4001
+
4002
+
While the poetics of Methods and Processes were
4003
+
still to come, Paper Piece was an early example of Patterson
4004
+
taking an onomatopoetic approach to describing the kinds of
4005
+
sounds he was after. One can imagine the descriptions
4006
+
themselves forming a kind of short text-sound work:
4007
+
4008
+
SHAKE BREAK TEAR
4009
+
CRUMPLE RUMPLE BUMPLE
4010
+
RUB SCRUB TWIST
4011
+
POOF POP!
4012
+
4013
+
Even though some instructions allowed for flexibility,
4014
+
certain sounds were expected by the composer, as with the
4015
+
direction TWIST (“The paper is twisted tightly until a
4016
+
squeaking sound is produced”).9 Since there was no existing
4017
+
tradition of paper-handling in music, these techniques had to
4018
+
be invented by the composer.
4019
+
“The explosive pops blowing out paper bags are
4020
+
enough to be always quite audible,” Patterson told the
4021
+
Columbia students. “Cardboard boxes are very good, and
4022
+
cardboard tubes, very good for ‘muscular’ performances.”10
4023
+
In addition to directions for creating certain sounds,
4024
+
the score also sets forth expectations of visual content:
4025
+
4026
+
“TEAR” - each sheet should be reduced to particles
4027
+
less than 1/10 size of the whole sheet11
4028
+
4029
+
The above instruction also bears implications
4030
+
regarding duration, since it takes some time to tear a piece of
4031
+
paper into very small pieces. The suggested overall duration
4032
+
of the piece is from ten to twelve and a half minutes, but the
4033
+
score also pragmatically proposes that the piece end when
4034
+
the paper supply is exhausted. In practice, however, the
4035
+
piece ends when the performer wants it to end.
4036
+
4037
+
4038
+
4039
+
118 Paper Piece
4040
+
At Columbia, Patterson noted that in performance,
4041
+
the score usually served as a point of departure for what was
4042
+
to follow: “Most of the performances started out more or
4043
+
less like that, but then they quickly took on their own
4044
+
character, which is just fine with me, which is what should
4045
+
happen.”12 Indeed, through improvisation, performers of
4046
+
Paper Piece explore the sound of sociality, intention, and
4047
+
consensus. Following the curator-theorist Nicolas
4048
+
Bourriaud, one can view this as a form of “relational art”—a
4049
+
type of work that proposes “moments of sociability.”13 In
4050
+
Bourriaud’s terms, Paper Piece operates “like a relational
4051
+
device containing a certain degree of randomness, or a
4052
+
machine provoking and managing individual and group
4053
+
encounters.”14 Thus, the overarching effect of Paper Piece is
4054
+
of an emergent sound sculpture composed of physicality,
4055
+
relationality, conviviality, and the creation of community, like
4056
+
that of an arts and crafts workshop. Agency and control are
4057
+
shared among the experiencers, the work, and the artists
4058
+
themselves. Writing in 1964, Patterson declared, “I
4059
+
demanded of an experiencer (not a passive viewer or
4060
+
listener) to act in the position of performer, interpreter and
4061
+
even as creator in the event.”15
4062
+
It is also significant that Paper Piece welcomes
4063
+
nonspecialist performers; in fact, no “specialists” in paper
4064
+
performance existed when it was conceived, and thus the
4065
+
work could not imply a need for conventional displays of
4066
+
virtuosity. That it could be performed by “anyone” is an
4067
+
aspect of Patterson’s work that later carried over into the
4068
+
pieces in Methods and Processes. In the Columbia seminar,
4069
+
Patterson recalled that his determined goal for Paper Piece
4070
+
was to create complex new music that anyone could
4071
+
perform: “There must be some other way to create a work
4072
+
that could have a certain amount of acoustic complexity, but
4073
+
could be performed by practically anyone with a sensitive
4074
+
ear at least, and without thirty years of study of the piano,
4075
+
violin, or whatever.”16
4076
+
4077
+
4078
+
4079
+
Lewis 119
4080
+
A similar intent marked the methods of the pianist
4081
+
and composer Cecil Taylor’s use of letter notation.17 In
4082
+
rehearsals, Taylor dictated note names and melodic direction
4083
+
to the performers, for example, “start on B-flat, up to D,
4084
+
down to G-flat." Taylor’s notational strategy allowed
4085
+
complex structures to be realized by a mixed cohort of
4086
+
players, from the highly classically trained to autodidact
4087
+
players with almost no relationship to Western notation.18
4088
+
Paper Piece pushes the envelope even further. As
4089
+
Patterson has noted, “My pieces, as they appear on paper,
4090
+
have neither material nor abstract value . . . they can only
4091
+
achieve value in performance, and then only the personal
4092
+
value that the participant himself perceives about his own
4093
+
behavior and/or that of the society during and/or after the
4094
+
experience. In fact, any piece is just this: a person, who,
4095
+
consciously, does this or that. Everybody can do it.”19
4096
+
The level of precision of the notation in Paper Piece
4097
+
contrasts markedly with the indeterminacy of the result,
4098
+
which itself is telling in that many listeners could not discern
4099
+
the difference between precisely notated contemporary
4100
+
music scores of the 1950s and works for similar
4101
+
instrumentation composed according to chance operations,
4102
+
or even improvised. In this sense, does Paper Piece—whose
4103
+
score dutifully specifies the sizes, colors, types, qualities,
4104
+
and quantities of paper to be used, and the procedures for
4105
+
producing the sounds—present a humorous sendup of
4106
+
Kontakte and other works like it? As the musicologist Robert
4107
+
P. Morgan remarked on what was already happening in the
4108
+
mid-1950s:
4109
+
4110
+
Stockhausen, Boulez, and their serialist colleagues
4111
+
had come to realize that the more precisely musical
4112
+
events were predetermined, the more random and
4113
+
haphazard they tended to sound. Since the nature of
4114
+
European serialism was to treat all musical elements
4115
+
as equal, the result often appeared to be a collection
4116
+
of disparate events with no perceptible effect upon,
4117
+
4118
+
4119
+
120 Paper Piece
4120
+
or connection with, one another. Any single event
4121
+
tended to sound “arbitrary” and could thus just as
4122
+
well be replaced by another.20
4123
+
4124
+
On the first evening of the Festum Fluxorum Fluxus
4125
+
at the Staatliche Kunstakademie Düsseldorf in 1962, in
4126
+
response to the Kunstakademie faculty member and festival
4127
+
organizer Joseph Beuys, who had requested that some kind
4128
+
of manifesto regarding Fluxus be presented at the festival,
4129
+
the sounds of crumpling and tearing, apparently emanating
4130
+
from behind an onstage paper screen, announced the
4131
+
commencement of a performance of Paper Piece.21 At some
4132
+
point, sheets of paper containing a text were dumped onto
4133
+
the heads of the audience. The authorship of this text was
4134
+
later attributed to Fluxus cofounder George Maciunas that
4135
+
became known as “The Fluxus Manifesto,” which read in
4136
+
part:
4137
+
4138
+
Purge the world of bourgeois sickness,
4139
+
“intellectual,” professional & commercialized
4140
+
culture, PURGE the world of dead art, imitation,
4141
+
artificial art, abstract art, illusionistic art,
4142
+
mathematical art,—PURGE THE WORLD OF
4143
+
“EUROPANISM!” [. . .] PROMOTE A
4144
+
REVOLUTIONARY FLOOD AND TIDE IN ART,
4145
+
Promote living art, anti-art, promote NON ART
4146
+
REALITY to be fully grasped by all peoples, not only
4147
+
critics, dilettantes and professionals. [. . .] FUSE the
4148
+
cadres of cultural, social & political revolutionaries
4149
+
into united front & action.22
4150
+
4151
+
In Owen’s account of the Düsseldorf event, the
4152
+
performance ended “as the paper screen was gradually torn
4153
+
to shreds, leaving a paper-strewn stage.”23 One could easily
4154
+
imagine copies of the manifesto being crumpled, rumpled,
4155
+
and bumpled in an implicitly satiric distancing from the very
4156
+
idea of “manifesto.” At the Columbia seminar, Patterson
4157
+
observed that something like this “happened at the very first
4158
+
4159
+
4160
+
Lewis 121
4161
+
performance, without even trying to do it. At every
4162
+
performance after that, paper drifted off into the audience
4163
+
off the stage by accident and everybody joined in. So it’s
4164
+
now the big audience piece in which everybody participates,
4165
+
even though it may start on the stage.”24
4166
+
One account of the origin of Paper Piece dates it to
4167
+
1959: “Benjamin Patterson, then visiting Germany to
4168
+
explore developments in experimental music, writes a letter
4169
+
to his family and offers a score, Paper Piece, as a Christmas
4170
+
gift and activity.”25 This account is not sourced,
4171
+
unfortunately, and it is at variance with Patterson’s account
4172
+
of the origins of the work, which he says was in response to
4173
+
the 1960 premiere of Stockhausen’s Kontakte.26
4174
+
Regardless of why or for whom the piece was
4175
+
originally created, it has proved attractive to all types of
4176
+
audiences. Sheila O’Shea, an innovative music teacher at
4177
+
the School at Columbia University, a private elementary and
4178
+
middle school in New York affiliated with the university,
4179
+
discovered that even her youngest students responded to
4180
+
the piece. In 2018, O’Shea introduced her elementary-age
4181
+
students to the performance of instructional art and had
4182
+
them create their own text scores in the spirit of Fluxus. She
4183
+
said the students found performing Paper Piece “really
4184
+
refreshing and a release. . . . The words ‘fun’ and ‘freeing’
4185
+
and ‘release’ came up many times.”27
4186
+
Reading O’Shea’s account, it seems that this
4187
+
performance by her students, like most presentations of the
4188
+
piece, quickly developed into sheer joy and laughter. In
4189
+
comparing the student performance with the 1962
4190
+
Düsseldorf event, it is interesting to remember that while a
4191
+
number of activities in Paper Piece are precisely specified,
4192
+
nothing in the score mentions the possibility of tossing about
4193
+
the bits of the torn paper, and yet that is what happened in
4194
+
both of these cases. This now traditional part of the
4195
+
performance seems to have come about as an inevitable
4196
+
outgrowth of simply tearing up paper, an act similar in intent
4197
+
4198
+
4199
+
4200
+
122 Paper Piece
4201
+
to the practice children have of building towers and then
4202
+
knocking them down.
4203
+
As O’Shea observed,
4204
+
4205
+
There is a sense of transgression. . . . People are
4206
+
allowed to tear up things and they don’t have to put
4207
+
them back together again. It is almost like having
4208
+
permission to be bold, but not in a bad way—in a
4209
+
humorous and engaging way that hurts no one.
4210
+
There is an innocence and fun to it that the kids relate
4211
+
to, and they all felt a profound sense of respect for
4212
+
the project. They felt different inside and they all
4213
+
wanted the chance to do it again. Their eyes were
4214
+
bright and they looked enlivened. They thanked me
4215
+
for introducing them to art forms that they would
4216
+
never usually encounter and said that the experience
4217
+
changed how they look at art and what they view as
4218
+
art.28
4219
+
4220
+
The Düsseldorf performance rendered literally
4221
+
palpable the differences between Paper Piece and its
4222
+
negative image, Kontakte. The latter, as well as any other
4223
+
work that might require something like the fabled 120 hours
4224
+
of rehearsal, was clearly not intended to be consigned to the
4225
+
dustbin of history, given how much practice it took to
4226
+
perform it. Stockhausen, composer of Kontakte, and so
4227
+
many other composers of works from this era drew on the
4228
+
traditions of Werktreue in the hope that their creations
4229
+
would one day enter the museum of musical works, which,
4230
+
in this moment, before the philosophy of Lydia Goehr, had
4231
+
not yet become imaginary.29 In the sharpest contrast to this
4232
+
aesthetic, as Patterson told his Columbia audience in 2011,
4233
+
“there is no definitive version” of Paper Piece.30
4234
+
Thus, as the saxophonist and composer Eric Dolphy
4235
+
remarked in the concluding sonic epigraph of his celebrated
4236
+
1964 album Last Date: “When you hear music, after it’s
4237
+
over, it’s gone in the air. You can never capture it again.”31
4238
+
Dolphy’s pithy but potent comment makes common cause
4239
+
4240
+
Lewis 123
4241
+
with the deepest intent of Paper Piece and, indeed, Fluxus
4242
+
itself. As Patterson said on a 2002 recording of “Fluxus
4243
+
stories”:
4244
+
4245
+
An important part of Fluxus—early Fluxus, let’s
4246
+
say—was that the manifestation of the art should be
4247
+
immaterial. That’s why it became music or
4248
+
performance or events, or—“happenings” were a bit
4249
+
suspicious, but events were clear there. So it was
4250
+
something that you experience, and that was it. You
4251
+
couldn’t take it away.32
4252
+
4253
+
Notes
4254
+
4255
+
1. Valerie Cassel Oliver, ed., Radical Presence: Black Performance in
4256
+
Contemporary Art (Houston: Contemporary Arts Museum Houston,
4257
+
2013), 121.
4258
+
2. Benjamin Patterson, “Lecture at Columbia University,” video recording,
4259
+
20 March 2011, private collection of George E. Lewis. For a similar
4260
+
account from Patterson about the origins of Paper Piece, see Kathy
4261
+
Goncharov and Benjamin Patterson, “Oral History Interview with
4262
+
Benjamin Patterson, 2009 May 22,” Smithsonian Archives of American
4263
+
Art, https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history
4264
+
-interview-benjamin-patterson-15685, accessed 21 May 2024.
4265
+
3. Benjamin Patterson, Methods and Processes (Paris: self-published,
4266
+
1962). For a historical and analytical account of the emergence and
4267
+
poetics of event scores, see Liz Kotz, “Post-Cagean Aesthetics and the
4268
+
‘Event’ Score,” October 95 (Winter 2001): 55–89.
4269
+
4. Dick Higgins, “Statement on Intermedia” (1966), in Dé-coll/age 6, ed.
4270
+
Wolf Vostell (Frankfurt: Typos Verlag; New York: Something Else Press,
4271
+
1967), available online at https://www.artpool.hu/Fluxus/Higgins/
4272
+
intermedia2.html. In 1964 Dick Higgins remembered that even before
4273
+
meeting Patterson, he suspected that he was Black: “Actually
4274
+
Patterson’s way of using periodic repeats and the blues feeling that this
4275
+
produced being so ingrained and natural struck me so much that when he
4276
+
first sent me a copy of methods and processes I wrote to him and guessed
4277
+
he was a negro.” Quoted in Sally Banes, Greenwich Village, 1963: Avant-
4278
+
Garde Performance and the Effervescent Body (Durham, NC: Duke
4279
+
University Press, 1993), 206. Along related lines, Patterson’s emphasis
4280
+
on diversity of timbres and techniques recalls the composer Olly Wilson’s
4281
+
1992 theorization of the “heterogeneous sound ideal” in Black music:
4282
+
“The desirable musical sound texture is one that contains a combination
4283
+
4284
+
4285
+
124 Paper Piece
4286
+
of diverse timbres [and a] fundamental bias for contrast of color—
4287
+
heterogeneity of sound rather than similarity of color or homogeneity.”
4288
+
Olly Wilson, “The Heterogeneous Sound Ideal in Afrodiasporic Music,” in
4289
+
Signifying, Sanctifyin’, and Slam Dunking: A Reader in African American
4290
+
Expressive Culture, ed. Gena Dagel Caponi (Amherst: University of
4291
+
Massachusetts Press, 1999), 160.
4292
+
5. Benjamin Patterson, Paper Piece (Cologne: self-published, 1959–60).
4293
+
The dynamic directions ppp and fff are abbreviations for pianississimo
4294
+
and fortississimo, which mean “very, very soft” and “very, very loud,”
4295
+
respectively. Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 39, folder 33, Getty
4296
+
Research Institute, Los Angeles.
4297
+
6. Patterson, Paper Piece.
4298
+
7. Patterson, Paper Piece.
4299
+
8. Patterson, Paper Piece.
4300
+
9. Patterson, Paper Piece.
4301
+
10. Patterson, “Lecture at Columbia.”
4302
+
11. Patterson, Paper Piece.
4303
+
12. Patterson, “Lecture at Columbia.”
4304
+
13. Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics (Dijon: Les Presses du Reel,
4305
+
2002), 33.
4306
+
14. Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics, 30.
4307
+
15. Benjamin Patterson, “Bekenntnis,” in Happenings, Fluxus, Pop Art,
4308
+
Nouveau Réalisme: Eine Dokumentation, ed. Jürgen Becker and Wolf
4309
+
Vostell (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1965), 241. Translation by the author.
4310
+
16. Patterson, “Lecture at Columbia.”
4311
+
17. See Matthew Goodheart, “Freedom and Individuality in the Music of
4312
+
Cecil Taylor” (MA thesis, Mills College, 1996), 38.
4313
+
18. Goodheart, “Freedom and Individuality,” 38–39.
4314
+
19. Patterson, “Bekenntnis,” 245. Translation from the German by the
4315
+
author.
4316
+
20. Robert P. Morgan, Twentieth-Century Music: A History of Musical Style
4317
+
in Modern Europe and America (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), 371.
4318
+
21. See Owen Smith, “Developing a Fluxable Forum: Early Performance and
4319
+
Publishing,” in The Fluxus Reader, ed. Ken Friedman (Chichester, West
4320
+
Sussex: Academy Editions, 1998), 3–21.
4321
+
22. Quoted in Smith, “Developing a Fluxable Forum,” 3–4. An image of “The
4322
+
Fluxus Manifesto” (1963) is available on the Museum of Modern Art’s
4323
+
website: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/127947.
4324
+
23. Smith, “Developing a Fluxable Forum,” 4.
4325
+
24. Patterson, “Lecture at Columbia.”
4326
+
25. Oliver, Radical Presence, 121.
4327
+
26. Patterson, “Lecture at Columbia University.” Most accounts of the
4328
+
premiere of the work date it to 1960 in Cologne. See “Karlheinz
4329
+
4330
+
4331
+
Lewis 125
4332
+
Stockhausen: Biography” (Stockhausen-Verlag, 2013), http://www
4333
+
.karlheinzstockhausen.org/karlheinz_stockhausen_short_biography
4334
+
_english.htm.
4335
+
27. Sheila O’Shea, personal communication with the author, 15 March 2018.
4336
+
28. O’Shea, personal communication.
4337
+
29. The reference is to the discussion of Werktreue, or fealty to the original
4338
+
intent of notated compositions, in Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum
4339
+
of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music, 2nd ed. (New
4340
+
York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
4341
+
30. Patterson, “Lecture at Columbia.”
4342
+
31. Eric Dolphy, final track on the album Last Date, [1965] 2008.
4343
+
32. Ben Patterson, Ben Patterson Tells Fluxus Stories (from 1962 to 2002), ?
4344
+
Records 7, 2002, compact disc.
4345
+
4346
+
4347
+
4348
+
4349
+
126 Paper Piece
4350
+
5. La Monte Young, ed.:
4351
+
An Anthology of Chance
4352
+
Operations (1962–63)
4353
+
4354
+
Benjamin Piekut
4355
+
4356
+
4357
+
4358
+
In 1960, La Monte Young was in his third year of graduate
4359
+
study in composition at University of California at Berkeley,
4360
+
where he represented a strange hybrid of beatnik
4361
+
counterculture and establishment credibility. That fall, he
4362
+
moved to New York City on a pre-doctoral fellowship
4363
+
intending to study experimental music composition with
4364
+
John Cage at the New School for Social Research. Instead,
4365
+
he found Richard Maxfield, who was filling in for Cage with a
4366
+
course on electronic music, which Young took.1
4367
+
Twenty-five years old, Young arrived on a multiyear
4368
+
wave of West Coast transplants that included the dancers
4369
+
Yvonne Rainer, Trisha Brown, and Simone Forti; musicians
4370
+
Terry Jennings and Joseph Byrd; artists Robert Morris and
4371
+
Walter De Maria; and poet Diane Wakoski.2 As a macher of
4372
+
the highest order, Young knew how to win friends and
4373
+
influence people. Within months, he was at the center of a
4374
+
hopping interdisciplinary arts scene that was composed of
4375
+
musicians, artists, dancers, and writers who were extending
4376
+
Cage’s aesthetic strategies. Populating one corner were the
4377
+
alums of Cage’s New School courses of 1956–59, who
4378
+
included George Brecht, Dick Higgins, Alison Knowles, Allan
4379
+
Kaprow, Jackson Mac Low, and many others. Another of
4380
+
those alums, Robert Ellis Dunn, had begun teaching Cage’s
4381
+
curriculum in 1960 to dancers at Merce Cunningham’s
4382
+
studio, then located above the Living Theatre. Such figures
4383
+
as Forti, Rainer, Steve Paxton, Judith Dunn, David Gordon,
4384
+
Trisha Brown, Elaine Summers, and Deborah Hay
4385
+
participated in these classes, and they would, in 1962, form
4386
+
the Judson Dance Theater. Many of these dancers also
4387
+
4388
+
................
4389
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/05/ 127
4390
+
continued to perform for the companies of Aileen Passloff
4391
+
and James Waring, for whom Maxfield provided musical
4392
+
scores. Maxfield would become fast friends with Young,
4393
+
who had begun to outline a strong musical aesthetic around
4394
+
static, complex sonic textures that invite focused listening
4395
+
experiences over long durations. Jennings, Terry Riley (who
4396
+
would pass through New York a few years later), and Dennis
4397
+
Johnson (who had stayed in California) shared this
4398
+
aesthetic, as well as Young’s experience with and
4399
+
commitment to various forms of improvised music, chief
4400
+
among them African American and South Asian variants.
4401
+
(The bumping salon centered on Amiri Baraka’s Cooper
4402
+
Square loft and the Five Spot Café had fewer overlaps with
4403
+
this white avant-garde, though collaborations and
4404
+
exchanges did occur.)
4405
+
Young’s other side—conceptual, anti-art, obsessed
4406
+
with the new—found common cause with such individuals
4407
+
as Morris, De Maria, and Henry Flynt. They sought to
4408
+
distinguish themselves from the older crowd, but those
4409
+
forerunners could still be found at their concerts, openings,
4410
+
and parties: not just Cage and Cunningham but also the
4411
+
composer Earle Brown, Cunningham dancer Carolyn Brown,
4412
+
pianist David Tudor (who would soon begin performing
4413
+
Young’s work in Europe), artist Robert Rauschenberg (who
4414
+
would involve himself with Judson Dance Theater a few
4415
+
years later), and composer Toshi Ichiyanagi.
4416
+
All these cliques bounced off one another at events
4417
+
in downtown New York. In a letter to Anna Halprin in
4418
+
California, Forti wrote, “N.Y. is full of little ‘movements’ who
4419
+
hate each other and who consider each other’s work
4420
+
worthless.”3 But they showed up and took in concerts that
4421
+
Young organized at Yoko Ono and Toshi Ichiyanagi’s loft on
4422
+
Chambers Street, where Forti, Flynt, Jennings, Byrd, Mac
4423
+
Low, Maxfield, Morris, Dennis Lindberg, and Young himself
4424
+
presented their work from December 1960 to June 1961.
4425
+
They showed up at the Reuben Gallery, where Brecht
4426
+
presented his “events” and Kaprow and Robert Whitman
4427
+
4428
+
128 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4429
+
produced some of their big “happenings,” and where Forti
4430
+
debuted Rollers and See-Saw in late 1960.4 And they
4431
+
showed up at AG Gallery on Madison Avenue, where co-
4432
+
owners Almus Salcius and George Maciunas produced
4433
+
several series of concerts and readings in 1961. Their corny
4434
+
“modern art” taste was roundly criticized at the time—
4435
+
“ghastly,” as Cage put it in a letter to Tudor—but Maciunas,
4436
+
in particular, came around quick to the new sensibility.5
4437
+
From May to July 1961, AG Gallery had presented works,
4438
+
readings, and entire evenings by Cage, Higgins, Mac Low,
4439
+
Ichiyanagi, Byrd, Young, Flynt, De Maria, Morris, Baraka,
4440
+
Diane di Prima, and the artist Ray Johnson.
4441
+
Amid all this hustle and bustle, Chester Anderson,
4442
+
the San Francisco poet who edited the small zine Beatitude,
4443
+
invited Young to guest edit a special New York version of the
4444
+
journal that Anderson was calling Beatitude East. The
4445
+
composer subsequently spent late 1960 and early 1961
4446
+
gathering materials from his extensive contacts, many of
4447
+
whom are named above. He had also written to some poets
4448
+
he had met during his visit to the international summer
4449
+
course in new music at Darmstadt in 1959: Emmett
4450
+
Williams, Dieter Roth (a.k.a. Diter Rot), and Claus Bremer.6
4451
+
The manuscript he assembled became AN ANTHOLOGY of
4452
+
chance operations concept art anti-art indeterminacy
4453
+
improvisation meaningless work natural disasters plans of
4454
+
action stories diagrams music poetry essays dance
4455
+
constructions mathematics compositions.
4456
+
But by late spring of 1961, Beatitude had gone belly
4457
+
up, and Anderson had disappeared with the materials. He
4458
+
finally returned the collection that June, when Young and
4459
+
Mac Low were at AG Gallery having their photographs taken
4460
+
for promotional materials. Upon hearing Mac Low’s account
4461
+
of the ill-fated magazine issue, Maciunas offered to publish
4462
+
the book himself. That September, Maciunas designed the
4463
+
distinctive cover and front matter (figs. 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3), as
4464
+
well as the individual title pages for each artist entry. (Note
4465
+
how almost every name on an artist title page retains its
4466
+
4467
+
Piekut 129
4468
+
original position on the page listing all of the contributors
4469
+
[figs. 5.4, 5.5]).
4470
+
By then, Mac Low had joined the production team,
4471
+
typing up many of the contributions, correcting negatives,
4472
+
and handling communications with the printer. Maciunas,
4473
+
meanwhile, had left the country to take a design job with the
4474
+
U.S. military in Wiesbaden, West Germany, so Mac Low and
4475
+
Young hustled to find funds. They held two benefit concerts
4476
+
in early 1962 featuring many of the contributors to the
4477
+
volume; these events took place at the Living Theatre,
4478
+
whose Sixth Avenue premises had been recently redesigned
4479
+
by the architect and patron Paul Williams. (Williams was also
4480
+
the planner of the Gate Hill Cooperative outside of Stony
4481
+
Point, New York, where Cage, Tudor, M. C. Richards, and
4482
+
several others lived during the 1950s and 60s; Cage
4483
+
dedicated Williams Mix [1951–53] to him). Williams
4484
+
eventually paid the outstanding printing bill for An
4485
+
Anthology, but he asked that copyright on the final
4486
+
publication be held by both Young and Mac Low, to which
4487
+
condition Maciunas agreed. In the end, therefore, we say
4488
+
that Young edited it, Maciunas designed it, and Young and
4489
+
Mac Low copublished it. An Anthology was finally released
4490
+
in an edition of between seven hundred and nine hundred
4491
+
copies on the second weekend of May 1963.
4492
+
As its full title suggests, the book contains a
4493
+
haphazard miscellany. There is notated music for
4494
+
conventional recital performance—even if that music is
4495
+
indeterminate in nature—by Byrd, Jennings, Ichiyanagi, and
4496
+
Christian Wolff. Terry Riley contributed a lovely work of
4497
+
graphic notation titled Concert for Two Pianists and Tape
4498
+
Recorders (1960) (fig. 5.6, view online), though he does not
4499
+
include instructions for interpretation. And there is some
4500
+
poetry from Mac Low, Claus Bremer, and Emmett Williams,
4501
+
whose Cellar Song for Five Voices (ca. 1960) (fig. 5.7, view
4502
+
online) was clearly intended for performance and was in fact
4503
+
presented at one of the benefit concerts in early 1962. There
4504
+
are even some more-or-less conventional essays on topics of
4505
+
4506
+
130 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4507
+
Fig. 5.1 Jackson Mac Low (American, 1922–2004); George Maciunas
4508
+
(Lithuanian American, 1931–78); La Monte Young (American, b. 1935).
4509
+
Pages from AN ANTHOLOGY of chance operations, concept art anti-art
4510
+
indeterminacy improvisation meaningless work natural disasters plans of
4511
+
action stories diagrams music poetry essays dance constructions
4512
+
mathematics compositions, 1962, offset printed. Getty Research Institute,
4513
+
item 94-B19099. © Estate of Jackson Mac Low.
4514
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/238/
4515
+
4516
+
4517
+
4518
+
4519
+
Piekut 131
4520
+
Figs. 5.2, 5.3 Jackson Mac Low (American, 1922–2004); George
4521
+
Maciunas (Lithuanian American, 1931–78); La Monte Young (American, b.
4522
+
1935). Pages from AN ANTHOLOGY of chance operations, concept art anti-
4523
+
art indeterminacy improvisation meaningless work natural disasters plans
4524
+
of action stories diagrams music poetry essays dance constructions
4525
+
mathematics compositions, 1962, offset printed. Getty Research Institute,
4526
+
item 94-B19099. © Estate of Jackson Mac Low.
4527
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/238/
4528
+
4529
+
4530
+
4531
+
4532
+
132 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4533
+
Figs. 5.4, 5.5 Jackson Mac Low (American, 1922–2004); George
4534
+
Maciunas (Lithuanian American, 1931–78); La Monte Young (American, b.
4535
+
1935). Pages from AN ANTHOLOGY of chance operations, concept art anti-
4536
+
art indeterminacy improvisation meaningless work natural disasters plans
4537
+
of action stories diagrams music poetry essays dance constructions
4538
+
mathematics compositions, 1962, offset printed. Getty Research Institute,
4539
+
item 94-B19099. © Estate of Jackson Mac Low.
4540
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/238/
4541
+
4542
+
4543
+
4544
+
4545
+
Piekut 133
4546
+
interest at the time, such as Nam June Paik’s rather elliptical
4547
+
text on fixed and open form and Flynt’s foundational essay
4548
+
“Concept Art,” in which he outlined a field of inquiry where
4549
+
structure could be cleaved from aesthetic “crutches” like
4550
+
music and isolated as its own site of play and invention.
4551
+
“‘Concept art’ is first of all an art of which the material is
4552
+
‘concepts,’ as the material of for ex[ample] music is sound,”
4553
+
he wrote. “Since ‘concepts’ are closely bound up with
4554
+
language, concept art is a kind of art of which the material is
4555
+
language.”
4556
+
Maxfield’s thoughtful essays on electronic music
4557
+
resonated with the other concerns of An Anthology’s
4558
+
contributors. In “Composers, Performance and Publication,”
4559
+
he noted how, by working directly with new electronic tools,
4560
+
composers had no further need of “obsolete symbols on
4561
+
score paper.” As Liz Kotz and others have observed, this
4562
+
departure from specialized musical notation and toward
4563
+
other notational strategies—namely text scores but also
4564
+
magnetic tape—opened up musical strategies to artists
4565
+
working outside the discipline.7 Elsewhere during this
4566
+
period, Maxfield explicitly linked the aesthetic problems
4567
+
posed by tape recording with sculpture, which presented
4568
+
similar combinations of fixed media and fluid perception.8 In
4569
+
“Music, Electronic and Performed,” he wrote, “Even when
4570
+
an art object is completely fixed the aesthetic experience it
4571
+
induces is never the same on two different occasions.”
4572
+
If these chapters largely remain in their own lanes,
4573
+
most of the other contributions support Branden Joseph’s
4574
+
contention that working across disciplines was the primary
4575
+
marker of being “advanced” after Cage.9 For example, in
4576
+
Yoko Ono’s contribution, To George, Poem No. 18, October
4577
+
29, 1961 (1961), the line between drawing and poetry is
4578
+
obscured: the poem’s Japanese and English text has been
4579
+
almost completely covered up by a black ink wash. Likewise,
4580
+
Ichiyanagi’s Mudai #1 for La Monte Young, Dec. 1960
4581
+
(1960) (fig. 5.8, view online) offers a few calligraphic marks
4582
+
across its blank page.
4583
+
4584
+
134 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4585
+
Among the more senior contributors, Earle Brown
4586
+
provided Young several spreads from Twenty-Five Pages
4587
+
(1953) and two from Folio and 4 Systems (1954), including
4588
+
the sublime graphic December 1952 (fig. 5.9, view online),
4589
+
which, in its early departure from conventional music
4590
+
notation, opened up a route to the myriad uses of the score
4591
+
format that can be found elsewhere in An Anthology.
4592
+
Even Cage’s 45′ for a Speaker (1954) (fig. 5.10, view
4593
+
online) represents an early example of post-disciplinary
4594
+
performance that is rarely noted as such. Is it music, an
4595
+
expository lecture, or a monologue? The work relishes in this
4596
+
ambiguity about category.
4597
+
A cluster of Cage’s students from the New School
4598
+
courses contributed text scores and events to the volume. In
4599
+
fact, the score for Brecht’s first large event, Motor Vehicle
4600
+
Sundown (Event) (1960), appears in An Anthology, along
4601
+
with two more text pieces by him for performers who
4602
+
respond sonically to standard playing cards distributed by a
4603
+
dealer. The little section of An Anthology titled “Paragraphs,
4604
+
Quotations and Lists” he includes after these text scores
4605
+
reiterates the Neo-Dada project of joining art and life. The
4606
+
two pieces by Higgins are similar to Brecht’s text scores,
4607
+
with a set of common items and a series of directions for
4608
+
how to manipulate them. In his own section (at nineteen
4609
+
pages, the longest in the publication), Mac Low included
4610
+
chance-derived poetry and prose, as well as scores for
4611
+
textual performances.
4612
+
Three of Walter De Maria’s text scores distinguish
4613
+
themselves by producing objects rather than events—boxes
4614
+
or a column, for example (more about this in a moment). A
4615
+
fourth piece, Beach Crawl (1960), lays out a precise process
4616
+
for a group performance at the seashore that ends with
4617
+
participants shouting, “Well, that’s new, isn’t it?” This
4618
+
fixation on novelty extended to De Maria’s essay
4619
+
“Meaningless Work,” which reveals an interest—strongly
4620
+
shared at the time with Flynt—for new modalities of
4621
+
4622
+
4623
+
4624
+
Piekut 135
4625
+
experience that could not be reduced to art, music, labor, or
4626
+
entertainment.
4627
+
The collection has achieved historical significance
4628
+
for a few reasons. The first is its presentation of work that
4629
+
would later be construed as representative of musical
4630
+
minimalism, sculptural minimalism, postmodern dance,
4631
+
sound poetry, event scores, Fluxus, graphic notation,
4632
+
concept art, and even a certain strain of electronic music.
4633
+
The document is dense with history. It is also an uncertain
4634
+
textual object: What are you supposed to do with it? As Liz
4635
+
Kotz has documented, Maciunas spent much of 1962 trying
4636
+
to convince Young and Mac Low to produce the book with
4637
+
handmade, artisanal touches, like covers made of canvas or
4638
+
cardboard. The pair refused his innovative ideas. “You may
4639
+
want a book that will disappear as rapidly as an Allen [sic]
4640
+
Kaprow environment,” wrote Mac Low to Maciunas in early
4641
+
1962. “We want one that will last awhile at least to be at
4642
+
least a semi-permanent record of our work.”10 Mac Low may
4643
+
have longed for permanence, but that didn’t require fixity; as
4644
+
Maciunas realized, a book could do more than record and
4645
+
preserve. Dieter Roth’s black page with holes (1961),
4646
+
unfortunately absent from the Getty Research Institute’s
4647
+
1962 copy, exemplifies this tension. A detachable sheet of
4648
+
white card stock (black stock turned out to be expensive and
4649
+
hard to find) with ten holes of two sizes, it is intended to be
4650
+
placed over any page of text. The words peeping through the
4651
+
holes then become a kind of found poetry. Ultimately, the
4652
+
piece is a work of book art as well as a technology for reading
4653
+
any book and transforming it into new poetic texts.
4654
+
Maciunas’s role in the publication should not be
4655
+
overstated. His distinctive typographic style stamps the
4656
+
book with an easily recognized graphic identity, but it was
4657
+
Young who organized the contents. Maciunas did slip in a
4658
+
characteristic typographical intervention in the form of his
4659
+
(unattributed) piece Ding Dong, the title of which he inserted
4660
+
in the table of contents between the names Dennis Johnson
4661
+
and Ray Johnson.11
4662
+
4663
+
136 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4664
+
The text consists of a single two-beat phrase—DING
4665
+
DONG—repeated relentlessly across the left-hand page,
4666
+
margin to margin, and arranging itself into vertical columns,
4667
+
or stripes (fig. 5.11, view online). Its status as proto-Fluxus is
4668
+
indicated not only by the droll humor and textual ambiguity
4669
+
(is it an instruction or a record of past action?) but also by the
4670
+
blank seriality of its iterative form. The ding and the dong,
4671
+
trading fours forever, might proliferate across a series of
4672
+
identical printings, or they might generate (or name)
4673
+
countless ringing events. In other words, the repetition of
4674
+
the text captures both the multiplicity of the commodity
4675
+
form and the singularity of performances that might escape
4676
+
it.
4677
+
In fact, seriality is one of the most overdetermined
4678
+
points of tangle in the years around 1960. For the Maciunas-
4679
+
led offramp headed toward Fluxus, the creation of identical
4680
+
items in a series took the form of the multiple, or objects and
4681
+
boxes (Fluxboxes) filled with trinkets and distributed in small
4682
+
editions. As Natilee Harren has persuasively argued, the
4683
+
iterative logic of the score, which creates endless repetitions
4684
+
of the same relations in the form of events, found its
4685
+
sculptural corollary in Fluxus multiples. These latter are
4686
+
objects that you treat like scores: You handle them, you
4687
+
participate with them, you activate them in small private
4688
+
concerts.12
4689
+
Although Fluxus multiples were handmade objects
4690
+
with little uniformity, they aspired to a condition of
4691
+
industrialized, mechanical duplication and administration.
4692
+
This aspiration was clear in light of Maciunas’s fascination
4693
+
with bureaucratic information management and its symbols,
4694
+
such as the filing card, the mailing label, and the taxonomic
4695
+
shelving system, as well as his evident belief in the powers
4696
+
of centralized planning, modern automation, and industrial
4697
+
prefabrication. For example, in his contribution to Flynt’s
4698
+
1965 pamphlet Communists Must Give Revolutionary
4699
+
Leadership in Culture (fig. 5.12), Maciunas included plans for
4700
+
4701
+
4702
+
4703
+
Piekut 137
4704
+
a “Soviet prefabricated building system” using calcium
4705
+
silicate insulation foam panels bonded to enamel.
4706
+
Ultimately, as Harren argues, Maciunas’s slapdash
4707
+
forays into industrial production felt lowbrow compared with
4708
+
the cool sophistication of minimalist sculpture or high-gloss
4709
+
pop multiples.13 The modular logic of the series, however,
4710
+
spans these distinct aesthetic formations. If Maciunas took
4711
+
the series in one direction, Young took it in another, one more
4712
+
characteristic of what would later be called minimalism. “A
4713
+
minimalist work is not diminutive, and it is not
4714
+
underdetermined or open to ambient events. It saturates the
4715
+
field with uniformity or monotony,” writes Flynt. “The
4716
+
audience has to supply the psychological modulations.”14 In
4717
+
the short text called “Blank Form” (which is among the
4718
+
materials that Robert Morris removed from the final
4719
+
publication of An Anthology but that appear in the Getty
4720
+
Research Institute’s copy, which is a unique bound proof),
4721
+
Morris sketched a related project: “Art is primarily a situation
4722
+
in which one assumes an attitude of reacting to some of
4723
+
one’s awareness as art.”15
4724
+
A fitting example, composed by Young in April 1960
4725
+
but titled and premiered in 1961, is Arabic Numeral (Any
4726
+
Integer) to H. F., commonly known as X for Henry Flynt. The
4727
+
piece directs its performer to make any single, very loud
4728
+
sound—in the handwritten copy that can be found in the
4729
+
David Tudor Papers (box 14, folder 9), a piano cluster is
4730
+
indicated—and to repeat it for a certain predetermined
4731
+
number of iterations (which is the “Arabic numeral” in the
4732
+
title).16 Young requests an interval of between one and two
4733
+
seconds to separate the iterations, using a relatively short
4734
+
silence between sounds. As one commentator has pointed
4735
+
out, the piece demands uniformity but desires the variety
4736
+
that creeps in with fatigue and error.17 Suppose a pianist
4737
+
plans 6000 for Henry Flynt, beginning with a massive, two-
4738
+
armed cluster on the keyboard, played as loud as possible.
4739
+
By repetition number 400, she will have grown very tired. By
4740
+
number 3,000, she will be exhausted and barely able to carry
4741
+
4742
+
138 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4743
+
Fig. 5.12 Henry Flynt (American, b. 1940); George Maciunas (Lithuanian
4744
+
American, 1931–78). Communists Must Give Revolutionary Leadership in
4745
+
Culture, 1965, double-sided offset print. Getty Research Institute, Jean
4746
+
Brown Papers, 890164, box 263, folder 1. Courtesy of Billie Maciunas.
4747
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/333/
4748
+
4749
+
4750
+
4751
+
4752
+
Piekut 139
4753
+
on; her “as loud as possible” will have grown quieter. Once
4754
+
fatigue sets in, the pianist will begin dropping notes in the
4755
+
cluster. Should the next repetition match the previous
4756
+
imperfection, or should it attempt to return to the opening
4757
+
sound that was supposed to be repeated uniformly? These
4758
+
questions and conundrums can only be produced through
4759
+
the performance itself, in which the instructions laid out in
4760
+
the text score meet reality in the hands, ears, and body,
4761
+
fostering heightened awareness, assessment, and
4762
+
adjustment in real time. (One might call that improvisation.)
4763
+
A similar arrangement of continuous pressure and
4764
+
small adjustment is proposed in the early version of Slant
4765
+
Board that Simone Forti contributed to An Anthology
4766
+
(wherein it appears as an untitled dance construction).18
4767
+
Premiered in early 1961 at Ono’s loft, the construction was a
4768
+
large geometric plywood form of the type that would soon
4769
+
characterize the early minimalist sculptures of Forti’s
4770
+
husband, Robert Morris, who had built it for her following her
4771
+
construction plans. It was an eight-by-eight-foot platform,
4772
+
raised to a 45-degree angle, from which hung a few knotted
4773
+
ropes. Forti’s instructions direct three dancers to move
4774
+
across the platform, picking up and dropping ropes as
4775
+
necessary to adjust their balance and support. In a manner
4776
+
similar to that for X for Henry Flynt, Slant Board assigns a
4777
+
basic task to its performers, who then employ that high-
4778
+
pressure monotony (a 45-degree angle is not easy) to
4779
+
develop microscopic attention to the fine details of their
4780
+
bodies’ responses. This dynamic is extended into a
4781
+
collaborative scenario in Forti’s other dance construction for
4782
+
An Anthology, the earliest statement of her well-known
4783
+
group dance Huddle (1961).
4784
+
Young himself contributed fourteen word pieces to
4785
+
the publication. Three of them, all from 1960, continue the
4786
+
proto-minimalist direction discussed above. Composition
4787
+
1960 #7, the only one using musical notation, directs its
4788
+
performer to sound a dyad of B and F-sharp “for a long time.”
4789
+
Another, Composition 1960 #10 to Bob Morris, generalizes
4790
+
4791
+
140 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4792
+
#7 into a meta-rule that dispenses with specialized notation;
4793
+
it reads, “Draw a straight line and follow it.” Finally,
4794
+
Composition 1960 #9 consists of an unlined index card with
4795
+
a single, heavy, straight line drawn across it. The title and
4796
+
directions on how to orient the card correctly are printed on
4797
+
the outside of an enclosing envelope that is itself pasted
4798
+
onto a page of An Anthology. This trio of little pieces
4799
+
exemplifies yet again the theme of inscriptive play across the
4800
+
publication: musical becomes typographic becomes
4801
+
graphic.
4802
+
Young’s other word scores constitute a set of
4803
+
investigations into the limits and requirements of music as a
4804
+
formalized activity. Do you need an audience? An audible
4805
+
sound? A performer? A composer? Is the piano sufficient to
4806
+
qualify the event as music? What about one’s own distant
4807
+
memory of a sound? Can one frame natural phenomena as
4808
+
music? What about an imagined sound, one not present
4809
+
here? Can music exist in the subjunctive? This spirit of
4810
+
relentless questioning and expansion is threaded throughout
4811
+
An Anthology.
4812
+
4813
+
Notes
4814
+
4815
+
1. See Jeremy Grimshaw, Draw a Straight Line and Follow It: The Music and
4816
+
Mysticism of La Monte Young (New York: Oxford University Press,
4817
+
2012).
4818
+
2. The description of Young’s New School colleagues draws on the
4819
+
following: Henry Flynt, “La Monte Young in New York, 1960–62,” in
4820
+
Sound and Light: La Monte Young and Marian Zazeela, ed. William
4821
+
Duckworth and Richard Fleming (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University
4822
+
Press, 1996), 44–97; Jackson Mac Low, “How Maciunas Met the New
4823
+
York Avant Garde,” in Fluxus: Today and Yesterday (Art and Design
4824
+
Profile 28), ed. Johan Pijnappel (London: Academy Editions, 1993); and
4825
+
Liz Kotz, “Poetry Machines,” in +/- 1961: Founding the Expanded Arts,
4826
+
ed. Julia Robinson and Christian Xatrec (Madrid: Museo Nacional Centro
4827
+
de Arte Reina Sofía, 2013), 50–67.
4828
+
3. Simone Forti to Anna Halprin, n.d. [early 1961], Anna Halprin Papers, box
4829
+
1, folder 54, Museum of Performance + Design, San Francisco.
4830
+
4. See Virginia B. Spivey, “The Minimal Presence of Simone Forti,”
4831
+
Woman’s Art Journal 30, no. 1 (2009): 11–18.
4832
+
4833
+
4834
+
Piekut 141
4835
+
5. John Cage to David Tudor, n.d. [Summer 1961], David Tudor Papers,
4836
+
980039, box 52, folder 3, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
4837
+
6. Kotz, “Poetry Machines,” 65n8. Young’s correspondence indicates that
4838
+
he had also asked David Tudor and Hans Helms for materials. Young to
4839
+
David Tudor, n.d. [1961], David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 61, folder 2,
4840
+
Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
4841
+
7. Liz Kotz, Words to Be Looked At: Language in 1960s Art (Cambridge,
4842
+
MA: MIT Press, 2007).
4843
+
8. Richard Maxfield to Peter Yates, 3 October 1961, Peter Yates Papers, box
4844
+
13, folder 6, Mandeville Special Collections, University of California, San
4845
+
Diego.
4846
+
9. Branden W. Joseph, Beyond the Dream Syndicate: Tony Conrad and the
4847
+
Arts after Cage (New York: Zone Books, 2008). See also Carrie Lambert,
4848
+
“More or Less Minimalism: Six Notes on Performance and Visual Art in
4849
+
the 1960s,” in A Minimal Future? Art as Object 1958–1968, ed. Ann
4850
+
Goldstein and Lisa Gabrielle Mark (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004),
4851
+
103–9.
4852
+
10. Jackson Mac Low, quoted in Kotz, “Poetry Machines,” 51.
4853
+
11. Flynt, “La Monte Young in New York,” 64.
4854
+
12. Natilee Harren, Fluxus Forms: Scores, Multiples, and the Eternal Network
4855
+
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020), 138.
4856
+
13. As Kotz notes about the multiple, “It risks turning Minimalism into a toy,
4857
+
something that one would pick up and play with.” Liz Kotz, “Make an
4858
+
Object to Be Lost: Multiples and Minimalism,” in The Small Utopia: Ars
4859
+
Multiplicata (Milan: Prada Foundation, 2012), 181–89.
4860
+
14. Flynt, “La Monte Young in New York,” 67–68.
4861
+
15. La Monte Young, Jackson Mac Low, and George Maciunas, AN
4862
+
ANTHOLOGY of chance operations, concept art anti-art indeterminacy
4863
+
improvisation meaningless work natural disasters plans of action stories
4864
+
diagrams music poetry essays dance constructions mathematics
4865
+
compositions (New York: self-published, 1962), n.p.
4866
+
16. Toshi Ichiyanagi premiered the work on 14 May 1961, at Carnegie Recital
4867
+
Hall; David Tudor subsequently performed it at the Darmstadt Summer
4868
+
Course later that year.
4869
+
17. Cornelius Cardew, “On the Role of Instructions in the Performance of
4870
+
Indeterminate Music” (1965), in Treatise Handbook (New York: Edition
4871
+
Peters, 1971).
4872
+
18. For the final version of the score, see Simone Forti, Handbook in Motion
4873
+
(Halifax: Press of the Nova Scotia School of Design, 1974).
4874
+
4875
+
4876
+
4877
+
4878
+
142 An Anthology of Chance Operations
4879
+
6. George Brecht: Drip Music (Drip
4880
+
Event) (1959–62), from Water
4881
+
Yam (1963)
4882
+
4883
+
Natilee Harren
4884
+
4885
+
4886
+
4887
+
In 1959, in the wake of nearly a decade of postwar
4888
+
experimentation with new forms of musical notation, the
4889
+
American visual artist George Brecht began to develop a
4890
+
genre of text-based performance instruction he called the
4891
+
“event score.” Having turned his creative energies away
4892
+
from abstract expressionist painting and, correspondingly,
4893
+
his intellectual focus away from the work of Jackson Pollock
4894
+
and toward that of John Cage, Brecht joined Cage’s
4895
+
experimental composition course at the New School for
4896
+
Social Research in the summers of 1958 and 1959 (fig. 6.1).
4897
+
His notebooks from the time, selections of which are
4898
+
included in the Archive section of this chapter, provide an
4899
+
illuminating chronicle of this period.
4900
+
In the first pages of Brecht’s notebook from the
4901
+
summer 1958 class, he records Cage’s description of
4902
+
“events in sound-space,” which proposed that the practice
4903
+
of experimental composition entailed an expanded notion of
4904
+
music including all manner of multisensorial phenomena.1
4905
+
With this definition in place, Cage’s class became an
4906
+
important crucible for emerging intermedia practices. There,
4907
+
new musical thinking was further developed by a younger
4908
+
generation of composers, poets, and visual artists including
4909
+
Brecht, Allan Kaprow, Jackson Mac Low, Al Hansen, Dick
4910
+
Higgins, Toshi Ichiyanagi, Richard Maxfield, and Yoko Ono.
4911
+
Honed under Cage’s influence, Brecht’s event score became
4912
+
a major genre within Fluxus, the international artist
4913
+
collective founded in 1962 by George Maciunas. Brecht’s
4914
+
scores were frequently performed at Fluxus concerts, and
4915
+
hundreds of Fluxus scores were written following his model.
4916
+
4917
+
................
4918
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/06/ 143
4919
+
Fig. 6.1 Students in John Cage’s experimental composition class, New
4920
+
School for Social Research, New York, NY, summer 1958. From Al Hansen,
4921
+
A Primer of Happenings & Time-Space Art (New York: Something Else
4922
+
Press, 1965), 101.
4923
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/556/
4924
+
4925
+
4926
+
4927
+
4928
+
144 Drip Music (Drip Event)
4929
+
While Brecht’s event scores were particularly influential and
4930
+
broadly circulated, they were not singular; La Monte Young
4931
+
and Ono also composed text scores beginning in the early
4932
+
1960s.2 Due to the event score’s incredible flexibility and
4933
+
potential for transmission across disciplines and practices,
4934
+
the format has remained a useful tool for myriad conceptual,
4935
+
performative, and process-oriented practices from the
4936
+
1960s to the present.
4937
+
Among the dozens of event scores Brecht composed
4938
+
between 1959 and 1963, his Drip Music (Drip Event)
4939
+
(1959–62) remains among the best known and is therefore
4940
+
highlighted in this chapter as paradigmatic of the genre (fig.
4941
+
6.2). Drip Music was performed regularly during the first
4942
+
Fluxus concert tour in Europe in 1962 and 1963 and became
4943
+
known mainly through the interpretations of others, since
4944
+
Brecht did not travel to participate in any of those concerts.
4945
+
Beginning with realizations of the piece by Dick Higgins in
4946
+
Copenhagen (fig. 6.3) and George Maciunas in Düsseldorf
4947
+
(fig. 6.4), a performance convention developed wherein a
4948
+
single performer climbs a ladder and pours water from a
4949
+
pitcher into a vessel (the sound sometimes amplified by a
4950
+
contact microphone) placed on the floor below. This version
4951
+
of the piece continues to be performed today, as this
4952
+
chapter’s Playback section shows.
4953
+
Yet there have been many other versions too,
4954
+
including several offered by Brecht, which suggests that the
4955
+
artist wanted to keep the work perpetually open for
4956
+
rethinking. At Rutgers University in spring 1963, Brecht
4957
+
himself stood at floor level and performed his drip in a
4958
+
modest, undramatic way (fig. 6.5), and in the 1970s he
4959
+
created a dripping faucet sculpture for the garden of the
4960
+
German collector and multiples publisher Wolfgang Feelisch.
4961
+
In contrast with Cage, who preferred his scores to be
4962
+
performed by approved collaborators such as David Tudor
4963
+
and who notoriously clashed with uncooperative
4964
+
performers, Brecht said of his scores, “It’s implicit in the
4965
+
scores that any realisation is feasible . . . . Any and every. I
4966
+
4967
+
Harren 145
4968
+
Fig. 6.2 George Brecht (American, 1926–2008). Drip Music (Drip Event),
4969
+
1959–62, offset print. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers,
4970
+
890164, box 127 (contained within the compendium Water Yam). © 2022
4971
+
Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
4972
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/346/
4973
+
4974
+
4975
+
4976
+
4977
+
146 Drip Music (Drip Event)
4978
+
Fig. 6.3 Dick Higgins performing
4979
+
George Brecht’s Drip Music (Drip Fig. 6.4 George Maciunas
4980
+
Event) at Fluxus–Musik og Anti performing George Brecht’s Drip
4981
+
Musik det Instrumentale Teater, Music (Drip Event) at Festum
4982
+
Nikolai Kirke, Copenhagen, 25 Fluxorum, Kunstakademie
4983
+
November 1962, gelatin silver print. Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, 2 February
4984
+
Getty Research Institute, The 1963. Photograph by Manfred Leve.
4985
+
Kitchen Videos and Records, item getty.edu/publications/scores/
4986
+
K2001845. Photographed by Poul object-index/360/
4987
+
Hansen for Dagbladat AKTUELT
4988
+
newspaper. The Gilbert and Lila
4989
+
Silverman Fluxus Collection Gift,
4990
+
2008. © 2023 Artists Rights Society
4991
+
(ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst,
4992
+
Germany. Image © The Museum of
4993
+
Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA /
4994
+
Art Resource, NY.
4995
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/
4996
+
object-index/359/
4997
+
4998
+
4999
+
5000
+
5001
+
Harren 147
5002
+
wouldn’t refuse any realisations.”3 Brecht’s own
5003
+
interpretations of Drip Music are not to be taken as master
5004
+
examples to copy, and they do not exhaust the score’s
5005
+
possibilities for interpretation. Rather, the primary text that
5006
+
is Drip Music instigates the endless deferral of the work’s
5007
+
meaning, in an aesthetic gesture that anticipates
5008
+
postmodern critiques of the author and of the metaphysics
5009
+
of presence articulated by cultural theorists including Michel
5010
+
Foucault, Roland Barthes, and Umberto Eco. Individual
5011
+
performances of an event score participate in an ongoing
5012
+
revelation of the score’s proposed form—actions and objects
5013
+
joined in a certain spatiotemporal arrangement—that
5014
+
remains always partially latent or potential.
5015
+
As seen in Drip Music, Brecht’s event scores are
5016
+
typically brief texts written in generic, open-ended language
5017
+
that facilitates vast possibilities for performance and
5018
+
experience through its precise imprecision and careful
5019
+
attention to material relations and processes. The Brechtian
5020
+
event score describes a flexible structure that can
5021
+
accommodate an extraordinary range of content while
5022
+
maintaining the sparest continuity of identity. It forms the
5023
+
basis of a work that is, as Brecht described, “left as open as
5024
+
it could be and still have some shape.”4 Individual
5025
+
performances of an event score may look or sound very
5026
+
different from one to the next, yet one can observe a
5027
+
morphological continuity of activity across realizations,
5028
+
pointing to Fluxus’s radical rethinking of aesthetic form in
5029
+
terms of a mobile structure that exceeds the apparently
5030
+
visual and exists at the level of performed relations and
5031
+
processes.
5032
+
Remarkably, the language of Brecht’s event scores
5033
+
can suggest a performative response that is quite internal or
5034
+
passive and at times merely observational. Maciunas called
5035
+
the scores “temporal readymades,” with the understanding
5036
+
that they often simply reframe preexisting phenomena as
5037
+
worthy of aesthetic appreciation.5 Accordingly, the art
5038
+
historian Julia Robinson has argued that Brecht’s scores
5039
+
5040
+
148 Drip Music (Drip Event)
5041
+
Fig. 6.5 George Brecht performing Three Aqueous Events / Drip Music
5042
+
(Drip Event) at Happenings, Events, and Advanced Musics, at Douglass
5043
+
College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 6 April 1963. Photograph
5044
+
by Peter Moore; © Northwestern University.
5045
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/362/
5046
+
5047
+
5048
+
5049
+
5050
+
Harren 149
5051
+
provide an indexical “interpretive matrix” that mediates our
5052
+
relationship to quotidian phenomena, whether performed or
5053
+
found, thus radically transforming our experience of the
5054
+
everyday.6 For example, Drip Music inverts ordinary
5055
+
associations in that, as Brecht noted, “the score calls
5056
+
attention to the fact that water dripping can be very
5057
+
beautiful—many people find a dripping faucet very
5058
+
annoying, they get very nervous. It’s nice to hear it in an
5059
+
appreciative way.”7 Recurring references across his scores
5060
+
to common objects (such as suitcases, tables, and combs)
5061
+
and activities (such as moving objects from one place to
5062
+
another and turning things on and off, all of which you can
5063
+
explore in the full edition of Water Yam included in this
5064
+
chapter) amplify the possibility for artistic events to be
5065
+
discovered coincidentally in one’s immediate surroundings.
5066
+
Of note, Brecht was professionally trained as a
5067
+
research chemist and developed several patents for
5068
+
women’s tampons while working in the personal-products
5069
+
division of Johnson & Johnson. Deeply interested in
5070
+
quantum mechanics, he carried into his creative practice the
5071
+
viewpoint from physics that our environment is always in a
5072
+
state of flux. It should come as no surprise, then, that
5073
+
Brecht’s event scores are invested in the extraordinary
5074
+
effects of close attention paid to ordinary objects and
5075
+
actions. As his self-referential composition Event Score
5076
+
(1965) (fig. 6.6) suggests, such acts of careful observation
5077
+
can even extend into the realm of dreams or the
5078
+
unconscious.
5079
+
Historically, Brecht’s Drip Music marks a hinge
5080
+
moment within the longer twentieth-century narrative
5081
+
presented in The Scores Project. Drip Music is emblematic of
5082
+
the 1960s aesthetic paradigm shift from modernism to
5083
+
postmodernism in its recoding of the strategies of Marcel
5084
+
Duchamp, Jackson Pollock, and John Cage—three major
5085
+
sources for Brecht and his peers as they began to develop
5086
+
new, experimental practices. Following Duchamp, the event
5087
+
score expands the notion of the readymade to include
5088
+
5089
+
150 Drip Music (Drip Event)
5090
+
Fig. 6.6 George Brecht (American, 1926–2008). Event Score, August
5091
+
1965, offset print. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers, 890164,
5092
+
box 3, folder 34. © 2022 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-
5093
+
Kunst, Bonn.
5094
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/345/
5095
+
5096
+
5097
+
5098
+
5099
+
Harren 151
5100
+
multisensorial events that unfold through space and time.
5101
+
From Pollock, the relationship between the painter and his
5102
+
drip is recast from an indexical, autographic signature into an
5103
+
infinitely renewable procedure that can be materialized in
5104
+
any context, by anyone, and which enables form to emerge
5105
+
via automatic processes. (In 1962, Brecht claimed Pollock’s
5106
+
drip paintings of 1947–51 as performances of Drip Music’s
5107
+
radically simplified “Second version: Dripping,” a move that
5108
+
foreshadowed other retroactively designated or readymade
5109
+
Fluxus performances, such as Alison Knowles’s Identical
5110
+
Lunch [late 1960s–early '70s], a habitual meal reframed as a
5111
+
performance piece that is featured in chapter 9.) In the work
5112
+
of Cage, Brecht found new strategies for deploying chance
5113
+
procedures, which he elaborated in the crucial essay
5114
+
“Chance-Imagery,” written in 1957 and published in 1966.8
5115
+
In fact, Brecht’s gesture of sending an early draft of the
5116
+
essay to Cage facilitated his first meeting with Cage and
5117
+
Tudor in 1956; they stopped by Brecht’s home in New Jersey
5118
+
while on a mushroom-hunting trip. Relevant here, Cage had
5119
+
already proposed water as an ideal indeterminate material in
5120
+
his compositions Water Music (1952) and Water Walk
5121
+
(1959), the former of which was performed by Tudor in
5122
+
Darmstadt in the late 1950s and then again alongside some
5123
+
of Brecht’s early scores at Mary Bauermeister’s atelier in
5124
+
Cologne in 1960.
5125
+
In addition to Cagean indeterminacy, Brecht’s
5126
+
notebooks of the period reflect his thinking through Earle
5127
+
Brown’s plays with notational ambiguity in graphic scores
5128
+
such as December 1952 (1952). Arguably, Brecht’s event
5129
+
scores combined both ideas: they produced an
5130
+
indeterminate outcome arising from the ambiguous, open-
5131
+
ended qualities of written text. Brecht’s quotidian,
5132
+
democratic notational language thus avoided the various
5133
+
technical limitations introduced by both Cage’s and Brown’s
5134
+
intimidatingly complicated musical graphics. As Brecht
5135
+
argued in 1959:
5136
+
5137
+
5138
+
5139
+
152 Drip Music (Drip Event)
5140
+
The “virtu” of virtuosity must now mean behavior
5141
+
out of one’s life-experience; it cannot be delimited
5142
+
toward physical [or readerly] skill. The listener
5143
+
responding to this sound out of his own experience,
5144
+
adds a new element to the system: composer/
5145
+
notation/performer/sound/listener, and, for himself,
5146
+
defines the sound as music. For the virtuoso listener
5147
+
all sound may be music.9
5148
+
5149
+
In terms of distribution, Brecht’s event scores were
5150
+
in many ways a rather private, intimate format. Initially quite
5151
+
diverse in their graphic and material presentation, the artist
5152
+
hand-wrote or typed his scores on pieces of paper and
5153
+
mailed them to other artists, imagining individual works as
5154
+
“little enlightenments I wanted to communicate to my
5155
+
friends who would know what to do with them.”10 As the
5156
+
Archive section of this chapter shows, Brecht’s scores
5157
+
circulated within music, poetry, and experimental
5158
+
performance circles well before their association with
5159
+
Fluxus. Moreover, ephemera included here show that Brecht
5160
+
wanted his works published in literary magazines and
5161
+
newspapers such as Kulchur and The Village Voice at the
5162
+
same time that they appeared on the concert programs of
5163
+
alternative venues like the Living Theatre. At the request of
5164
+
Cage, who had witnessed the development of the Brechtian
5165
+
event score (including a 1959 performance of Brecht’s Time-
5166
+
Table Music (1959) at Grand Central Station), Brecht sent
5167
+
some of his compositions to Tudor, after which they quickly
5168
+
found an international audience in the avant-garde music
5169
+
world. Tudor performed Brecht’s Candle-Piece for Radios
5170
+
(1959) and Card-Piece for Voice (1959) at Bauermeister’s
5171
+
atelier in 1960 (fig. 6.7). The following year, Tudor presented
5172
+
the composer’s Incidental Music (1961) at the Internationale
5173
+
Ferienkurse für Neue Musik in Darmstadt and at the Sogetsu
5174
+
Art Center in Tokyo. Brecht’s correspondence with Tudor,
5175
+
the composer Toshi Ichiyanagi, poet M. C. Richards, theater
5176
+
and dance critic Jill Johnston, and Maciunas—examples of
5177
+
5178
+
5179
+
Harren 153
5180
+
which are included in this chapter—reveals the scores’ rich,
5181
+
multidisciplinary reception.
5182
+
From 1962, Brecht’s compositions appeared
5183
+
regularly on Fluxus programs and in publications
5184
+
spearheaded by Maciunas, who undertook the design and
5185
+
production of an anthology of Brecht’s scores among the
5186
+
other anthologies of Fluxus works he was diligently
5187
+
preparing. The result of Maciunas and Brecht’s collaboration
5188
+
was Water Yam, a small container in wood or cardboard
5189
+
(depending on the edition or individual copy) that encloses
5190
+
some seventy to one hundred (again, depending on the
5191
+
example) of Brecht’s scores, printed on loose cards of
5192
+
varying sizes (fig. 6.8). The publication’s portable, unbound
5193
+
design—which you can browse or filter by keyword in an
5194
+
interactive digital edition included in this chapter—
5195
+
accelerates the already active engagement of readers as
5196
+
they order, rearrange, and identify correlations between the
5197
+
scores, perhaps even further distributing the cards as
5198
+
individual works. What’s more, the container’s materiality,
5199
+
dimensions, and label, as well as its specific contents, varied
5200
+
across individual copies of Water Yam as editions were
5201
+
sporadically compiled in batches over the years. The
5202
+
collaborative process whereby Brecht’s event scores are
5203
+
interpreted and performed beyond the artist’s oversight thus
5204
+
threaded through the process of the production and
5205
+
distribution of the scores themselves, not only as part of the
5206
+
Fluxus publishing program directed by Maciunas but also
5207
+
beyond.
5208
+
As a notational format positioned between music,
5209
+
poetry, performance, and visual art, the event score proved
5210
+
to be profoundly generative for artists seeking new modes of
5211
+
working beyond established disciplinary or medium
5212
+
specializations from the 1960s onward. Many pathways can
5213
+
be traced through the aftermath of Brecht’s event scores and
5214
+
related forms of neo-avant-garde notation:
5215
+
postminimalism’s concern with process; conceptual art’s
5216
+
engagements with language and the framing of experience;
5217
+
5218
+
154 Drip Music (Drip Event)
5219
+
Fig. 6.7 Manfred Leve, Benjamin Patterson, Hans G. Helms, Ursula Kagel,
5220
+
Khris Helms, David Tudor, and others performing George Brecht’s Card-
5221
+
Piece for Voice (1959) as part of the “Contre-Festival,” organized during the
5222
+
IGNM-Weltmusikfestes, Atelier Mary Bauermeister, Cologne, Germany, 15
5223
+
June 1960. Getty Research Institute, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box
5224
+
159. Courtesy of the Manfred Leve Estate.
5225
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/237/
5226
+
5227
+
5228
+
5229
+
5230
+
Harren 155
5231
+
Fig. 6.8 George Brecht (American, 1926–2008). Water Yam, 1963,
5232
+
wooden box with label containing ninety-one scores printed on various
5233
+
sizes and colors of card stock. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown
5234
+
Papers, 890164, box 127. © 2022 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York /
5235
+
VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
5236
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/348/
5237
+
5238
+
5239
+
5240
+
5241
+
156 Drip Music (Drip Event)
5242
+
works made all or in part by delegated production;
5243
+
participatory practices that rely on basic instructions that
5244
+
yield varying results; and the do-it-yourself ethic pervasive
5245
+
within the larger postwar counterculture. The diversity of
5246
+
the event score’s legacy should come as no surprise if we
5247
+
take seriously the words of Cornelius Cardew, a friend to
5248
+
Brecht during his time in London in the late 1960s, who once
5249
+
wrote that Water Yam is best understood as “a course of
5250
+
study, and following on that, a teaching instrument.”11
5251
+
Arguably, it still contains many lessons for us today.
5252
+
5253
+
Notes
5254
+
5255
+
1. George Brecht, notebook of late June 1958, reprinted as George
5256
+
Brecht—Notebooks, vol. 1, June–September 1958, ed. Dieter Daniels
5257
+
and Hermann Braun (Cologne: Walther König, 1991), 4.
5258
+
2. Liz Kotz, “Post-Cagean Aesthetics and the Event Score,” in Words to Be
5259
+
Looked At: Language in 1960s Art (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007),
5260
+
59–98.
5261
+
3. Michael Nyman, “An Interview with George Brecht” (1976), in Henry
5262
+
Martin, An Introduction to George Brecht’s Book of the Tumbler on Fire
5263
+
(Milan: Multhipla Edizioni, 1978), 108. On a notable controversy
5264
+
regarding the performance of Cage’s work, see Benjamin Piekut, “When
5265
+
Orchestras Attack! John Cage Meets the New York Philharmonic,” in
5266
+
Experimentalism Otherwise: The New York Avant-Garde and Its Limits
5267
+
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 20–64.
5268
+
4. Nyman, “Interview with George Brecht,” 110.
5269
+
5. George Brecht, quoting George Maciunas in a letter to Brecht, early
5270
+
1963, George Maciunas Correspondence, Hanns Sohm Archive,
5271
+
Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
5272
+
6. Julia Robinson, “From Abstraction to Model: In the Event of George
5273
+
Brecht & the Conceptual Turn in the Art of the 1960s” (PhD diss.,
5274
+
Princeton University, 2008), 111–13. See also Julia Robinson, “From
5275
+
Abstraction to Model: George Brecht’s Events and the Conceptual Turn in
5276
+
Art of the 1960s,” October 127 (Winter 2009): 77–108; and Julia
5277
+
Robinson, George Brecht: Events; A Heterospective (Cologne: Walther
5278
+
König, 2005).
5279
+
7. Nyman, “Interview with George Brecht,” 110.
5280
+
8. George Brecht, “Chance-Imagery,” A Great Bear Pamphlet (New York:
5281
+
Something Else Press, 1966), republished in 2004 on UbuWeb, https://
5282
+
www.ubu.com/historical/gb/brecht_chance.pdf.
5283
+
5284
+
5285
+
5286
+
Harren 157
5287
+
9. George Brecht, George Brecht—Notebooks, vol. 3, April–August 1959,
5288
+
ed. Dieter Daniels and Hermann Braun (Cologne: Walther König, 1991),
5289
+
123.
5290
+
10. George Brecht, “The Origin of ‘Events’” (August 1970), in Happening &
5291
+
Fluxus, ed. Harald Szeemann and Hanns Sohm (Cologne: Kölnischer
5292
+
Kunstverein, 1970), n.p.
5293
+
11. Cornelius Cardew, concert program notes for Events by George Brecht:
5294
+
Selections from “Water YAM,” Royal Court Theatre, London, 22
5295
+
November 1970.
5296
+
5297
+
5298
+
5299
+
5300
+
158 Drip Music (Drip Event)
5301
+
7. Jackson Mac Low: Three Social
5302
+
Projects (1963)
5303
+
5304
+
John Hicks
5305
+
5306
+
5307
+
5308
+
5309
+
At around 2:30 in the afternoon on Monday, 29 April 1963,
5310
+
the poet and performer Jackson Mac Low mailed four
5311
+
postcards to the double bassist and composer Benjamin
5312
+
Patterson. That evening, he sent two more—one
5313
+
postmarked 6:00 p.m. and the sixth and final postmarked
5314
+
7:30. Earlier that day, Mac Low had sent copies of three of
5315
+
the six postcards by airmail to an address in Paris shared by
5316
+
the Romanian-born Swiss artist and writer Daniel Spoerri,
5317
+
the American concrete poet Emmett Williams, and the
5318
+
French artist and poet Robert Filliou (fig. 7.1).
5319
+
Each postcard was a plain, unlined index card, on the
5320
+
back of which were typed, in all caps, titles and texts of
5321
+
short compositions that are difficult to categorize. The
5322
+
works bear a resemblance to a number of different genres,
5323
+
from mail art to lyric poetry, music, and drama, with each
5324
+
category offering a different context in which the works
5325
+
might be interpreted or realized in performance. Mac Low
5326
+
was best known as a poet, and the ragged right-hand margin
5327
+
of the typewritten texts do have the recognizable shape of
5328
+
thin-column free verse. (For comparison, A. R. Ammons’s
5329
+
Tape for the Turn of the Year [1965], composed on adding-
5330
+
machine tape, was begun later in 1963.)1 But the simple
5331
+
diction, syntax, and crudely direct instructional phrasing
5332
+
make it quite difficult to identify Mac Low’s pieces as short
5333
+
lyric poems. Indeed, the language of the postcards does not
5334
+
resemble that of Mac Low’s explicitly poetic texts—which
5335
+
since the mid-1950s had been composed using elaborate,
5336
+
chance-based procedures—or that of any other avant-garde
5337
+
poets of his generation. Instead, Patterson and the other
5338
+
5339
+
................
5340
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/07/ 159
5341
+
Fig. 7.1 Map showing locations relevant to the creation and distribution of
5342
+
Jackson Mac Low’s postcard scores, spring 1963.
5343
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/404/
5344
+
5345
+
5346
+
5347
+
5348
+
160 Three Social Projects
5349
+
recipients probably would have recognized the format of the
5350
+
postcards as belonging to what is now known as the event
5351
+
score. These short instructional texts had been circulating
5352
+
among artists associated with the Neo-Dadaist group that
5353
+
had in 1961 been given the name Fluxus by the group’s
5354
+
instigator, the Lithuanian-born American artist George
5355
+
Maciunas.2 Mac Low himself later recalled that the Fluxus
5356
+
event scores had two main models:
5357
+
5358
+
La Monte [Young]’s Compositions 1960: musical
5359
+
and performance works whose scores . . . were short
5360
+
descriptive paragraphs (eventually published in An
5361
+
Anthology) and George Brecht’s card pieces,
5362
+
composed from 1959 to ’62 and—beginning
5363
+
sometime in ’61—mailed to friends [later collected in
5364
+
the Water Yam box]. . . . Brecht’s most characteristic
5365
+
card pieces are extremely laconic and
5366
+
“demonstrative” rather than descriptive.3
5367
+
5368
+
Although Mac Low and Patterson had gotten to
5369
+
know each other following Patterson’s return to New York
5370
+
from Germany, Mac Low had never met the Paris-based
5371
+
artists to whom he also mailed the postcards. Spoerri,
5372
+
Williams, and Filliou most likely knew of Mac Low through
5373
+
the selection of his works included in An Anthology of
5374
+
Chance Operations (1962–63) (fig. 7.2); or by his reputation
5375
+
as one of the composers featured in the famous Chambers
5376
+
Street concert series organized by La Monte Young in 1961
5377
+
(fig. 7.3).
5378
+
As the program for the concert at 112 Chambers
5379
+
Street suggests, in describing his art as consisting of
5380
+
“poetry, music, and theatre works,” Mac Low was a
5381
+
legitimate polymath: in addition to being a poet, Mac Low
5382
+
had been writing music since childhood, going through a
5383
+
twelve-tone phase and then eventually experimenting with
5384
+
Cagean chance operations, both in music and in textual
5385
+
works.4 He had been hired as a composer by director Judith
5386
+
Malina to write the musical accompaniment for the Living
5387
+
5388
+
Hicks 161
5389
+
Fig. 7.2 Jackson Mac Low (American, 1922–2004; George Maciunas
5390
+
(Lithuanian American, 1931–78); La Monte Young (American, b. 1935).
5391
+
Pages from Mac Low’s contribution to a unique copy of AN ANTHOLOGY of
5392
+
chance operations, concept art anti-art indeterminacy improvisation
5393
+
meaningless work natural disasters plans of action stories diagrams music
5394
+
poetry essays dance constructions mathematics compositions, 1962,
5395
+
offset printed. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Collection, item
5396
+
94-B19099. Courtesy of the Estate of Jackson Mac Low.
5397
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/238/#fig-238-an
5398
+
5399
+
5400
+
5401
+
5402
+
162 Three Social Projects
5403
+
Fig. 7.3 Program for Poetry, Music, and Theatre Works: Jackson Mac Low,
5404
+
the fifth concert in the series organized by La Monte Young at Yoko Ono’s
5405
+
studio, 112 Chambers Street, New York, NY, 8–9 April 1961. Getty
5406
+
Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 32, folder 6.
5407
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/275/
5408
+
5409
+
5410
+
5411
+
5412
+
Hicks 163
5413
+
Theatre’s 1954 staging of W. H. Auden’s poem The Age of
5414
+
Anxiety (1947), and the Living Theatre also staged Mac
5415
+
Low’s own work The Marrying Maiden: A Play of Changes
5416
+
(1960), with a musical setting by John Cage, which ran for
5417
+
forty-seven performances during 1960 and 1961.5
5418
+
By the time he made and sent the April 1963
5419
+
postcards, Mac Low’s works had been produced as plays in
5420
+
theaters, as music in concert venues, as poetry readings,
5421
+
and as published texts. In published form, Mac Low’s texts
5422
+
included explanations of the procedures used to produce
5423
+
them and/or performance instructions (which themselves
5424
+
frequently involved chance operations, performer choice, or
5425
+
both). The postcard scores, however, were not accompanied
5426
+
by any procedural notes, nor did they announce themselves
5427
+
as belonging to any one specific performance context. As a
5428
+
result of this ambiguity, how we understand the concept of
5429
+
the score can produce profound impacts on how we
5430
+
understand what Mac Low may have envisioned his
5431
+
colleagues, and future performers, might do with these
5432
+
works.
5433
+
The postcard Mac Low mailed to Patterson at 7:30
5434
+
p.m. on 29 April, his final installment for the day, presents an
5435
+
instance of the event score as a private, contemplative
5436
+
exercise or an inward task of concentration and discipline,
5437
+
with little if any room left for spectatorship other than a
5438
+
thinking reader: Light Rhythms for Henry Flynt (29 February
5439
+
1963) contains a series of instructions for what presumably
5440
+
must be an individual performer, to be realized in the rear car
5441
+
of a subway train. It gives the reader-performer the difficult
5442
+
task of concentrating on the rhythmic appearance of the
5443
+
tunnel lights being passed by the moving train rather than
5444
+
the loud, percussive sounds and the felt rhythms (bumping
5445
+
and swaying) produced by the train’s movement along the
5446
+
tracks.
5447
+
In the first postcard sent to Patterson, Mac Low
5448
+
attempts to combine the hallmarks of both the models cited
5449
+
above—Brecht’s abstract, conceptual titles, and Young’s
5450
+
5451
+
164 Three Social Projects
5452
+
interest in either droning or repetitive structures that
5453
+
continue for long periods of time. The score for Architecture
5454
+
(for GB)—the GB being Brecht’s initials—which is dated 28
5455
+
April 1963, the day before it was mailed to Patterson,
5456
+
contains the following instructions:
5457
+
5458
+
Look at a wall
5459
+
Memorize it
5460
+
Go away and wait a week
5461
+
Build a wall just like it
5462
+
Go away and wait a week
5463
+
Tear the new wall down
5464
+
Go away and wait a week
5465
+
5466
+
The instructional text then loops through this
5467
+
sequence three more times (to the bottom of the card),
5468
+
followed by “&c,” so that, in theory, the sequence should be
5469
+
repeated ad infinitum, or at least a large number of times. For
5470
+
a sense of the scale of repetition that these artists were
5471
+
interested in, one might look to Young’s X for Henry Flynt
5472
+
(April 1960), a.k.a. Arabic Numeral (Any Integer) to H. F.,
5473
+
which calls for a single chord to be sounded at regular
5474
+
intervals for a number of times to be decided prior to each
5475
+
performance (see chapter 5). Young’s score for this work,
5476
+
which he sent to the pianist David Tudor in hopes of having
5477
+
him perform it, provides 1,688 and 2,219 as examples of
5478
+
integers that might be selected.6 Or, one might look to the
5479
+
epic eighteen-hour-and-forty-minute performance of 840
5480
+
consecutive renditions of Erik Satie’s Vexations (ca.
5481
+
1893–94) organized by John Cage and presented on 9–10
5482
+
September 1963 at the Pocket Theatre in New York.
5483
+
In this frame of reference, and in light of Patterson’s
5484
+
own compositions utilizing everyday materials, such as
5485
+
Paper Piece (1960; see chapter 4), Patterson might have
5486
+
viewed Mac Low’s Architecture as a musical composition—
5487
+
the sounds resulting from the acts of looking at, memorizing,
5488
+
building, and tearing down a wall, with specified intervals or
5489
+
rests between each “movement.” Note, however, that even
5490
+
5491
+
Hicks 165
5492
+
just the rest intervals that are to be performed during the four
5493
+
rounds of instructions that appear before the “&c.” would
5494
+
require a minimum of twelve weeks to perform. A larger
5495
+
number of repetitions could easily require years or even
5496
+
decades to be performed, perhaps even exceeding the life
5497
+
expectancy of any one individual.
5498
+
Most readers, myself included, will likely engage
5499
+
with the work more figuratively—as a prompt for some kind
5500
+
of meditation or reflection—rather than attempt a
5501
+
performance of it. If we read “Architecture” as a poetic or
5502
+
literary work, for instance, we may see in it an allusion to the
5503
+
story of Bodhidharma, the monk who is said to have brought
5504
+
Chan Buddhism to China in the fifth or sixth century CE after
5505
+
a ten-year-long meditation in front of a wall. The thin, ragged
5506
+
column of text has the look of a poem, after all, and the
5507
+
repetition might even be seen as a playful reintroduction of
5508
+
rhyme in a free-verse context.
5509
+
But whereas a postcard containing the typewritten
5510
+
text of “Architecture” the poem could be considered a
5511
+
finished piece on its own, the same postcard containing Mac
5512
+
Low’s Architecture the musical work has the intermediate
5513
+
status of a score. The work itself is only realized in a given
5514
+
performance. Likewise, Architecture might be considered a
5515
+
dramatic composition for the theater: the script for a play
5516
+
containing no dialogue, only mise-en-scène and stage
5517
+
directions. The script may be printed out, but the work itself
5518
+
must be realized in a performance. This dramatic/theatrical
5519
+
work, too, would have a powerfully resonant context within
5520
+
the midcentury avant-garde and within Mac Low’s specific
5521
+
artistic network: Antonin Artaud’s proposals for the
5522
+
“Theater of Cruelty” genre in his collection of essays Le
5523
+
Théâter et son double (1938) were an important influence on
5524
+
Mac Low’s collaborators Judith Malina and Julian Beck of
5525
+
the Living Theatre. Artaud’s ideas would come to wider
5526
+
renown through M. C. Richards’s English translation,
5527
+
published in 1958.7 Arguing that the mere performance of
5528
+
dialogue is not sufficient to distinguish theatrical works from
5529
+
5530
+
166 Three Social Projects
5531
+
novels or other printed works that can be read aloud, Artaud
5532
+
called for spectacles that would “put an end to the
5533
+
subjugation of the theater to the text” and instead
5534
+
foreground “all the means of expression utilizable on the
5535
+
stage, such as music, dance, plastic arts, pantomime,
5536
+
mimicry, gesticulation, intonation, architecture, lighting,
5537
+
and scenery.”8
5538
+
Another postcard score, Schedule (for George
5539
+
Brecht) (1963), has a repetitive structure that mirrors that of
5540
+
Architecture but creates challenges for the performer from
5541
+
an entirely different angle. In two narrow columns, the text
5542
+
of the score repeats sixteen iterations of the following
5543
+
instructions: “Sleep awhile / Wake up / Do something,”
5544
+
followed by an ellipsis. If Architecture appears to require the
5545
+
concentration of a Buddhist saint, Schedule seems designed
5546
+
to expose the polar opposite of virtuosic difficulty, namely
5547
+
that of extreme ease of realization. Rather than presenting
5548
+
difficulties that are nearly impossible to overcome, the score
5549
+
of Schedule is ineluctable: it is so effortless to realize that it
5550
+
is, in effect, impossible not to perform the work short of
5551
+
falling into a coma or dying. Under normal living conditions,
5552
+
an ideal performance is virtually effortless, whether one
5553
+
intends one’s daily activities to be part of the work or not.
5554
+
Indeed, it may not even be possible to intentionally begin a
5555
+
performance of this work, given that the instructions start
5556
+
with the largely involuntary act of sleeping.9
5557
+
In composing texts that explore these extreme poles
5558
+
of performability—from impossible difficulty to inescapable
5559
+
ease—Mac Low seems to be intentionally provoking his
5560
+
colleagues to confront whether the practical concerns of
5561
+
real-world performances should or should not be considered
5562
+
as an essential component of the still-emerging genre of the
5563
+
event score. In short, does it matter whether a score can be
5564
+
performed in the real world, or are Fluxus event scores, at
5565
+
the end of the day, little more than playful thought
5566
+
experiments? These questions and distinctions become
5567
+
5568
+
5569
+
5570
+
Hicks 167
5571
+
most pressing, however, in Mac Low’s three Social Project
5572
+
scores:
5573
+
5574
+
Social Project 1: Find a way to end unemployment /
5575
+
or / find a way for people to live without employment
5576
+
/ make whichever one you find work
5577
+
Social Project 2: Find a way to end war / make it work
5578
+
Social Project 3: Find a way to produce everything
5579
+
everybody needs and to get it to them / make it work
5580
+
5581
+
Are these pieces not, in effect, impossible to
5582
+
perform, or are they possible only to attempt? Much like the
5583
+
other postcards, the Social Projects seem designed to
5584
+
dramatically expose the outer edges of our conception of
5585
+
performance. But even supposing that one of the Social
5586
+
Project scores were to be successfully performed, further
5587
+
problems remain for conceiving of them as performance
5588
+
works. The piece could never be performed again because
5589
+
the preexisting state of affairs (war, hunger, need) would
5590
+
have been eradicated and would no longer be available as
5591
+
materials/media with which the artists could perform the
5592
+
work (similar to any work that requires the complete
5593
+
exhaustion of some limited resource). However far-fetched
5594
+
an initial realization might be for one of these works, the
5595
+
impossibility of a second performance seems to run counter
5596
+
to one of the most minimal criteria for the definition of a
5597
+
“score”: namely, that the score be capable of generating
5598
+
multiple performances, allowing for divergent
5599
+
interpretations to emerge over time and extend the
5600
+
possibilities of the work with each new performance or
5601
+
realization.
5602
+
This collision of practical and conceptual concerns
5603
+
regarding the nature of the performance score would likely
5604
+
have been extremely relevant to Mac Low’s artistic
5605
+
colleagues, who were busy preparing inventive new
5606
+
performances of Fluxus event scores for the festivals that
5607
+
were planned for the summer of 1963 in the United States
5608
+
and Europe. As a historical matter, though, there was an
5609
+
5610
+
168 Three Social Projects
5611
+
even more immediate point of reference for Patterson and
5612
+
the other recipients of Mac Low’s postcards: the two-page,
5613
+
single-spaced, all-caps response that Mac Low had mailed
5614
+
just four days earlier, on 25 April 1963, to all of the Fluxus
5615
+
“members” who had received Maciunas’s Fluxus News—
5616
+
Policy Letter, no. 6 (dated 6 April 1963), which contained
5617
+
proposals for “Fluxus Propaganda” activities that Maciunas
5618
+
had drafted with Henry Flynt. Flynt’s and Maciunas’s
5619
+
proposed protest actions were explicitly Marxist-Leninist,
5620
+
and in some cases they were violent expressions of anti-art
5621
+
agitprop (for example, calling in bomb threats to cultural
5622
+
institutions in order to divert audiences to Fluxus events)
5623
+
that were incompatible with Mac Low’s long-held pacifist
5624
+
and anarchist beliefs.10 The proposed actions also clashed
5625
+
with Mac Low’s sense of individualism, which led him to
5626
+
resist being named as a member of any particular political
5627
+
group, even those with which he largely agreed.11
5628
+
In his 25 April letter, Mac Low writes:
5629
+
5630
+
I INSIST THAT ALL CULTURAL ACTIVITIES BE
5631
+
TRULY BENEVOLENT & POSITIVE & DONE IN A
5632
+
SPIRIT OF LOVE RATHER THAN ONE OF SCORNFUL
5633
+
CONTEMPT OR HATRED OR POLEMIC. I WD NOT,
5634
+
EXCEPT IN CERTAIN EXCEPTIONAL
5635
+
CIRCUMSTANCES, BOTHER TO ATTACK &/OR
5636
+
DEFILE WRONG TYPES OF CULTURAL ACTIVITY. I
5637
+
WD RATHER CARRY ON THE RIGHT KINDS OF
5638
+
CULTURAL ACTIVITY (OR ANY OTHER ACTIVITY,
5639
+
FOR THAT MATTER) & BY DOGGED
5640
+
PERSEVERANCE DO ALL I CAN TO REPLACE THE
5641
+
NEGATIVE BY THE POSITIVE, TRUSTING THAT
5642
+
ANY STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IS A STEP IN
5643
+
THE RIGHT DIRECTION & THAT BY ENOUGH SUCH
5644
+
STEPS WE WILL BE ABLE TO SUPERSEDE AN
5645
+
UNDESIRABLE SITUATION BY A DESIRABLE ONE.
5646
+
WE WON’T BE ABLE TO DO THIS BY MAKING IT
5647
+
HARDER FOR THE ORDINARY WORKER TO MAKE
5648
+
5649
+
5650
+
Hicks 169
5651
+
HIS LIVING OR TO GET ABOUT THE CITY OR TO
5652
+
COMMUNICATE.
5653
+
5654
+
Those who received his letter of protest to Policy
5655
+
Letter, no. 6 likely would have seen his Social Project
5656
+
postcard texts in light of this dispute—perhaps even as a
5657
+
restatement of his arguments in a format uniquely tailored to
5658
+
the Fluxus members he hoped to persuade. That is, instead
5659
+
of a two-page, all-caps rant, which Maciunas would refer to
5660
+
as one of the “hysterical outbursts . . . from people who
5661
+
failed to read the attached sheet [to Policy Letter, no. 6],”12
5662
+
Mac Low presents his objections in the form of a Fluxus
5663
+
event score. In doing so, he calls on his interlocutors to
5664
+
articulate more clearly the ethical stances and theories of
5665
+
social change that were being implicitly invoked in this newly
5666
+
expanded model of artistic performance.
5667
+
Viewed as a group, the six postcards Mac Low
5668
+
mailed to Patterson in April 1963 explore several axes along
5669
+
which the idea of the score was expanding: as public or
5670
+
collective performance, private reflection, political action,
5671
+
an art form of the everyday, an orientation towards process,
5672
+
and a tool for artistic collaboration. At the same time, these
5673
+
scores maintain their connection to existing genres and
5674
+
performance contexts such as mail art, protest art, poetry,
5675
+
music, and theater. Nonetheless, their richness derives less
5676
+
from the pure potentiality of all these possible modes than
5677
+
from the need to make and commit to choices among them
5678
+
along the way to a realization: to find a way and make it
5679
+
work.
5680
+
5681
+
Notes
5682
+
The author wishes to thank to Benjamin Bishop, Alexis Briley, Aaron
5683
+
Hodges, and Sarah Senk for their feedback on earlier versions of this
5684
+
essay.
5685
+
5686
+
1. For an image of Ammons’s manuscript for this work, see Archie Ammons
5687
+
Papers, #14-12-2665, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections,
5688
+
5689
+
5690
+
5691
+
5692
+
170 Three Social Projects
5693
+
Cornell University Library, https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss
5694
+
:23093081.
5695
+
2. Patterson’s own self-published Methods and Processes (Paris, 1962)
5696
+
was an important early collection of such scores, along with George
5697
+
Brecht’s Water Yam (1963) and Yoko Ono’s Grapefruit (1964).
5698
+
3. Nicholas Zurbrugg, “Jackson Mac Low Interviewed by Nicholas
5699
+
Zurbrugg” (16 January 1991), Crayon 1 (1997): 277–78. Mac Low notes
5700
+
that “all of Young’s 1960 compositions and Brecht’s card pieces were
5701
+
written long before Fluxus was ‘founded’ by Maciunas,” 288.
5702
+
4. Zurbrugg, “Jackson Mac Low Interviewed by Nicholas Zurbrugg,”
5703
+
264–65.
5704
+
5. Mac Low’s script consists of an “action pack” of approximately fourteen
5705
+
hundred playing cards containing single-line instructions for the play’s
5706
+
nine performers. Cards are distributed to the actors by a silent “dice
5707
+
player” who also manipulates the playback of Cage’s tape-loop score.
5708
+
See Jackson Mac Low, Representative Works: 1938–1985 (New York:
5709
+
Roof, 1986), 44–51. For Cage’s tape-loop score and a nine-minute
5710
+
recording, see John Cage, Music for “The Marrying Maiden” (New York:
5711
+
Henmar Press, 1960), Edition Peters nos. 6737 (score) and 6737a (tape).
5712
+
6. For the version of X for Henry Flynt that Young sent to Tudor, see David
5713
+
Tudor Papers, 980039, box 14, folder 9, and the recording in box 34A,
5714
+
item R325, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
5715
+
7. Antonin Artaud, The Theater and Its Double, trans. Mary Caroline
5716
+
Richards (New York: Grove, 1958). For further discussion in this volume
5717
+
of Artaud and of Richards’s translation of The Theater and Its Double, see
5718
+
the “Music, Scores, and Indeterminacy” and “Scoring Intermedia”
5719
+
sections of the introduction, and the commentaries by Michael Gallope
5720
+
and Nancy Perloff in chapter 2 and Gallope in chapter 3.
5721
+
8. Artaud, Theater and Its Double, 89, 40.
5722
+
9. The notion of an involuntary or unintended presentation of a performance
5723
+
score will be taken up again in chapter 9 on Alison Knowles’s Identical
5724
+
Lunch.
5725
+
10. Mac Low’s commitment to pacifist anarchism dates back at least to the
5726
+
early 1940s, when he published a series of interviews with conscientious
5727
+
objectors who were imprisoned for refusing to serve in the U.S. armed
5728
+
forces during World War II. For Mac Low’s anarchist writings and political
5729
+
activism, see Louis Cabri, “‘Rebus Effort Remove Government’: Jackson
5730
+
Mac Low, Why? / Resistance, Anarcho-pacifism,” Crayon 1 (1997):
5731
+
45–68; Andrew Cornell, Unruly Equality: U.S. Anarchism in the 20th
5732
+
Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016), 163, 183–87;
5733
+
and Al Filreis, “Adjustment and Its Discontents: Aleatory Art vs. Cold
5734
+
War Deradicalization,” in 1960: When Art and Literature Confronted the
5735
+
Memory of World War II and Remade the Modern (New York: Columbia
5736
+
5737
+
5738
+
Hicks 171
5739
+
University Press, 2021), 131–63. For more on the dispute between Mac
5740
+
Low and Maciunas regarding art/anti-art/art engagé, see Cuauhtémoc
5741
+
Medina, “The ‘Kulturbolschewiken’ I: Fluxus, the Abolition of Art, the
5742
+
Soviet Union, and ‘Pure Amusement,’” RES: Anthropology and
5743
+
Aesthetics 48 (2005): 179–92; and Cuauhtémoc Medina, “The
5744
+
‘Kulturbolschewiken’ II: Fluxus, Khrushchev, and the ‘Concretist
5745
+
Society,’” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 49–50 (2006): 231–43.
5746
+
See also Dick Higgins, Intermedia, Fluxus, and the Something Else Press,
5747
+
ed. Steve Clay and Ken Friedman (Catskill, NY: Siglio, 2018).
5748
+
11. Jackson Mac Low’s papers at the University of California at San Diego
5749
+
contain a collage of newspaper clippings about a protest action that Mac
5750
+
Low participated in on 15 June 1955, which vividly illustrates his sense
5751
+
of political individualism. The state of New York had ordered a mandatory
5752
+
air-raid drill in which the public was instructed to practice what to do in
5753
+
the event of a hypothetical five-megaton hydrogen bomb attack. Mac
5754
+
Low was among a group of pacifist protesters who gathered outside in a
5755
+
Manhattan park near New York City Hall, arguing that such preparatory
5756
+
drills only served the purpose of normalizing and accepting as inevitable
5757
+
the idea of thermonuclear conflict. They further argued that the drill
5758
+
coerced the public into acting as though a conflict involving such
5759
+
destructive weapons would be survivable and called for an end to nuclear
5760
+
weapons testing and other activities intended to prepare for, rather than
5761
+
prevent, war.
5762
+
Approximately thirty protesters were arrested for refusing to
5763
+
take shelter during the exercise, including the well-known activists
5764
+
Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy, and Bayard Rustin. Mac Low’s
5765
+
individualist anarchist politics are evident in the article by Malcolm Logan
5766
+
for the New York World-Telegram and Sun: “The demonstrators were
5767
+
members of The Catholic Workers, the War Resisters League, and the
5768
+
Fellowship of Reconciliation, plus one man, Jackson MacLow, 32, who
5769
+
said he was not a member of any of these groups.” See the collage of
5770
+
newspaper clippings documenting Jackson Mac Low’s arrest—along
5771
+
with Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker, Bayard Rustin of the War
5772
+
Resisters League, and others—for refusing to participate in a nationwide
5773
+
mandatory air-raid drill, ca. June 1955, UC San Diego Special Collections
5774
+
and Archives, Jackson Mac Low Papers, MSS 180, box 32, folder 4.
5775
+
12. George Maciunas, addendum to Fluxus News—Policy Letter, no. 6
5776
+
(1963), reprinted in FLUXUS etc. Addenda I, ed. Jon Hendricks (New
5777
+
York: Ink &, 1983), 159.
5778
+
5779
+
5780
+
5781
+
5782
+
172 Three Social Projects
5783
+
8. Yvonne Rainer: We Shall Run
5784
+
(1963)
5785
+
5786
+
Julia Bryan-Wilson
5787
+
5788
+
5789
+
5790
+
5791
+
Despite a wealth of critical writing about the photographic
5792
+
documentation of the choreographer Yvonne Rainer’s
5793
+
influential performances, surprisingly little attention has
5794
+
been paid to the range and complexity of her dance scores.1
5795
+
In fact, the term “score” itself has been inconsistently
5796
+
applied to the diverse set of notations she employed to
5797
+
transcribe sequences of bodily actions onto the page
5798
+
(including typed instructions, hand-drawn directional
5799
+
arrows, stick-figure drawings, penciled text on graph paper,
5800
+
gridded boxes listing numbers of steps, and color-coded
5801
+
lines); these have also been called, by Rainer and others,
5802
+
“floorplans,” “people plans,” “sketches,” “diagrams,”
5803
+
“charts,” “patterns,” and “designs.”2
5804
+
Throughout the 1960s, Rainer experimented with
5805
+
how best to capture gestures on the page. As the
5806
+
proliferating terms for her notational practices suggest, she
5807
+
never landed upon any standardized system. For Rainer, and
5808
+
for others involved in dance in the United States in that
5809
+
decade, the score operated as a tool or device that could
5810
+
cycle between several tenses: in one sense, it was forward-
5811
+
looking, functioning as a motor of composition as it
5812
+
suggested, ordered, and systematized motions to be
5813
+
performed. Rainer’s scores were also backward-facing, used
5814
+
retrospectively to record and preserve what had already
5815
+
occurred so that (reorienting once again toward the future)
5816
+
her dances might be remembered and repeated. An early
5817
+
mention of Rainer’s score-making dates from her formative
5818
+
summer in 1960 at Anna Halprin’s Northern California
5819
+
experimental dance workshop, where Rainer immersed
5820
+
5821
+
................
5822
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/08/ 173
5823
+
herself in “short projects and assignments involving objects,
5824
+
tasks, fragmented speech or vocal sounds,” resulting in a
5825
+
score titled Sonata for Screen Door, Flashlight, and Dancer
5826
+
(1960), the soundtrack of which was created using a
5827
+
squeaky door hinge.3 Halprin, for her part, had a conflicted
5828
+
relationship to scores, noting they could be used to
5829
+
“generate creativity” but also cautioning that “translating a
5830
+
movement experience into a series of words on the page is
5831
+
so contrary to the kinesthetic experience.”4
5832
+
In New York in the fall of 1960, as part of Robert
5833
+
Dunn’s dance composition course conducted at the Merce
5834
+
Cunningham Studio, Rainer pored over John Cage’s musical
5835
+
scores and used them as springboards for her own chance-
5836
+
based operations. Dunn’s assignments circulated around his
5837
+
conviction that the score, understood capaciously as a set of
5838
+
written parameters or guidelines to be interpreted, opened
5839
+
up new possibilities for indeterminacy and could spark
5840
+
evolving vocabularies for movement. As he told the dance
5841
+
historian Sally Banes: “Graphic notation is a way of inventing
5842
+
the dance. It is part of the conception of the dance.”5 Within
5843
+
the context of Dunn’s workshop, Rainer tested out scores
5844
+
such as Watering Place (ca. 1960), in which two concentric
5845
+
circles, bisected by spoke-like radiating lines, appear to
5846
+
spatialize routes traveled across the floor from an aerial
5847
+
perspective. At the bottom of the page are further
5848
+
instructions regarding pace and carriage, for example “taut,”
5849
+
“relaxed,” and “slow” (fig. 8.1).
5850
+
For her breakthrough solo Three Satie Spoons
5851
+
(1961), Rainer worked off of both Cage’s Fontana Mix
5852
+
(1958) and Erik Satie’s Trois Gymnopédies (1888) to
5853
+
produce a multimodal script that included granular textual
5854
+
descriptions of activities—beginning with “index fingers
5855
+
touch cheeks, then stretch mouth, right finger releases
5856
+
mouth”—together with schematic stick figures showing the
5857
+
arrangement of limbs and torso and with color-coded lines
5858
+
indicating movement phrases (fig. 8.2). She used a similar
5859
+
scoring strategy for a solo dance, The Bells, composed the
5860
+
5861
+
174 We Shall Run
5862
+
Fig. 8.1 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notebook page related to
5863
+
Watering Place, ca. 1960. Getty Research Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers,
5864
+
2006.M.24, box 1, folder 2. Used with Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
5865
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/448/
5866
+
5867
+
5868
+
5869
+
5870
+
Bryan-Wilson 175
5871
+
same year (fig. 8.3). Recruiting many representational
5872
+
genres in these early notebooks that span the conceptual
5873
+
and the denotative, she used text, cardinal direction initials,
5874
+
numbers, drawings, and parallel lines to signal orientations,
5875
+
poses, and temporal units; the drawings with abstracted
5876
+
lines are arresting in their own right as visual objects. On
5877
+
other pages, she cataloged body parts (arms, hands, legs,
5878
+
feet) and listed accompanying action verbs—ones
5879
+
recognizably drawn from the repertoire of everyday life
5880
+
rather than ones that require specialized dance expertise—
5881
+
such as, for hands, “rubbing/clapping/trembling/touching/
5882
+
sliding” (figs. 8.4, 8.5).
5883
+
This recruitment of found motion did not mean,
5884
+
however, that Rainer was not concerned with subtle details
5885
+
and controlled execution; in fact, it was quite the contrary.
5886
+
“Emphasis [is] on precision of movement and following of
5887
+
rules rather than humor,” she wrote in her notes and draft
5888
+
instructions from 1962.6 These examples demonstrate how
5889
+
Rainer understood the score as a formal container that could
5890
+
strip dance of its overly expressive and narrative qualities.
5891
+
Indeed, dance scores in the 1960s were understood to have
5892
+
both practical and political implications. As Deborah Jowitt
5893
+
has commented: “Those with no access to studio space
5894
+
could bring in a dance in the form of instructions to be
5895
+
interpreted on the spot. But, more important, scores could
5896
+
undermine habit, artifice, premeditation and present both
5897
+
choreographers and performers in the role of problem-
5898
+
solvers. A score could push art-by-inspiration out of the
5899
+
picture and still foster an individual approach.”7 Eliminating
5900
+
the demand for virtuosity was viewed as a way to allow for
5901
+
different kinds of movement enacted by many types of
5902
+
bodies.
5903
+
This method of providing stripped-down instructions
5904
+
so that others, including those not familiar with the
5905
+
specialized vocabularies of dance, might follow along, has
5906
+
continued within Rainer’s practice. In March 2020, she
5907
+
adapted her piece Terrain, from 1963, into a dance titled
5908
+
5909
+
176 We Shall Run
5910
+
Fig. 8.2 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notebook sketches for Three
5911
+
Satie Spoons, 1961. Getty Research Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers,
5912
+
2006.M.24, box 1, folder 4. Used with Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
5913
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/470/#fig-470-d
5914
+
5915
+
5916
+
5917
+
5918
+
Bryan-Wilson 177
5919
+
Fig. 8.3 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notebook sketch for The
5920
+
Bells, 1961. Getty Research Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers, 2006.M.24,
5921
+
box 1, folder 4. Used with Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
5922
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/470/#fig-470-e
5923
+
5924
+
5925
+
5926
+
5927
+
178 We Shall Run
5928
+
Fig. 8.4 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notes on arms, hands, legs,
5929
+
and feet, from Rainer’s dance scripts notebook, ca. 1962. Getty Research
5930
+
Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers, 2006.M.24, box 30, folder 10. Used with
5931
+
Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
5932
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/466/
5933
+
5934
+
5935
+
5936
+
5937
+
Bryan-Wilson 179
5938
+
Fig. 8.5 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notes on arms, hands, legs,
5939
+
and feet, from Rainer’s dance scripts notebook, ca. 1962. Getty Research
5940
+
Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers, 2006.M.24, box 30, folder 10. Used with
5941
+
Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
5942
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/466/#fig-466-b
5943
+
5944
+
5945
+
5946
+
5947
+
180 We Shall Run
5948
+
Passing and Jostling While Confined to a Small Apartment,
5949
+
which appeared in the New York Times as a series of written
5950
+
prompts and photographs for readers to enact, as a means to
5951
+
enliven the claustrophobic early days of the COVID-19
5952
+
lockdown.8 These “rules,” as she called them, and which
5953
+
she emphasized must be “clear and strict,” included
5954
+
directions with variables such as “the walker can choose to
5955
+
bump, lightly, into the standing person; that’s ‘jostling,’ and
5956
+
it can free the standing person to get back in motion.”
5957
+
Performers were welcome to follow the rules in endless
5958
+
permutations provided they adhere to the dance’s
5959
+
parameters.
5960
+
Rainer’s initial exploration of ordinary movements
5961
+
reached a kind of apex with We Shall Run, which premiered
5962
+
at the gym of New York’s Judson Memorial Church. In this
5963
+
dance, twelve performers—a mix of both trained and
5964
+
untrained dancers, all referred to in Rainer’s program notes
5965
+
as “runners”—first stand for about five minutes, then
5966
+
commence jogging with their arms at waist level in
5967
+
choreographed formations that cluster, splinter off, and
5968
+
regroup (fig. 8.6).9 The protracted stillness of the long
5969
+
opening minutes is contrasted by the later brisk, even
5970
+
cadence as the runners swarm in a mass, break apart, and
5971
+
gather again within constantly rearranging energetic
5972
+
patterns. In photographic documentation of a performance
5973
+
from 1965, their non-dancerly, pedestrian motions are
5974
+
emphasized by their sporting of bare feet and street clothes,
5975
+
including Alex Hay in a suit and tie, Sally Gross in a printed
5976
+
dress, and Deborah Hay in a T-shirt and sweatpants. We
5977
+
Shall Run is accompanied by a recording of the “Tuba
5978
+
mirum” passage of Hector Berlioz’s Requiem (1837), a
5979
+
swelling bombastic chorus that was meant as an ironic
5980
+
contrast to the laconic presentation of bodies. Yet, as Carrie
5981
+
Lambert-Beatty has observed, “Despite the simplicity of the
5982
+
jogging motion it deploys, We Shall Run is so complex as to
5983
+
perversely resemble the requiem’s interwoven melodies,
5984
+
repeating lines of text, and groupings of voices and
5985
+
5986
+
Bryan-Wilson 181
5987
+
instruments.”10 The organizational elements of We Shall
5988
+
Run are, in fact, notoriously complicated; though it is
5989
+
composed of only one basic step, this does not eliminate its
5990
+
difficulty. Lucinda Childs recalled that it was “hard to keep it
5991
+
in my head,” and Tony Holder created his own flip-card score
5992
+
to help him remember the sequence.11
5993
+
Rainer’s pencil-on-paper scores for We Shall Run
5994
+
emphasize rather than reduce this difficulty. Using arrows,
5995
+
lines, and numbers, she turns the page into an analogue of
5996
+
the gym floor; she diagrams, via foot-track vectors pictured
5997
+
from above, how the dance sends bodies across space (figs.
5998
+
8.7, 8.8, and 8.9). Such a movement map does not,
5999
+
however, convey other specific instructions: timing, how
6000
+
arms and hands should be positioned, or where the gaze
6001
+
should be directed. We Shall Run is an example of Rainer’s
6002
+
scores at their most graphically dynamic, with its assured
6003
+
draftsmanship of looping curlicues set against more
6004
+
geometric angles and neatly parallel channels fanning out
6005
+
like fingers on a splayed hand. A scrawled tangle of lines—a
6006
+
mistake seemingly crossed out in haste—is redrawn just
6007
+
below as a careful spiral (see fig. 8.8). Certain clear
6008
+
shorthands that appear here recur across other scores, such
6009
+
as the small letters DS, indicating downstage.
6010
+
It is worth stressing that Rainer’s scores are by and
6011
+
large not autonomous or transparent; most cannot be picked
6012
+
up and performed correctly on the basis of what is on the
6013
+
page alone. While her written instructions or rules for game-
6014
+
like pieces such as Passing and Jostling can effectively
6015
+
convey her dances, the sketches, charts, and maps are
6016
+
usually not technical drawings that can be used as faithful
6017
+
guides by themselves. For Rainer, such barely denotative
6018
+
jottings indicate that the score functioned conceptually as a
6019
+
broad methodology rather than as a narrowly pedagogical or
6020
+
utilitarian aid. The floorplans for We Shall Run and a later,
6021
+
related dance—the “running” section of Rainer’s Trio B
6022
+
(1968), which uses similar arrows and numbers to indicate
6023
+
how many steps to take in any one direction—retain a large
6024
+
6025
+
182 We Shall Run
6026
+
Fig. 8.6 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). We Shall Run (1963),
6027
+
performed at the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, CT, 7 March 1965. From
6028
+
left: Rainer, Deborah Hay, Robert Rauschenberg, Robert Morris, Sally
6029
+
Gross, Joseph Schlichter, Tony Holder, and Alex Hay. Getty Research
6030
+
Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers, 2006.M.24, box 69. Used with
6031
+
Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
6032
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/446/
6033
+
6034
+
6035
+
6036
+
6037
+
Bryan-Wilson 183
6038
+
Fig. 8.7 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notebook sketch related to
6039
+
We Shall Run, ca. 1963. Getty Research Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers,
6040
+
2006.M.24, box 1, folder 5. Used with Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
6041
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/436/
6042
+
6043
+
6044
+
6045
+
6046
+
184 We Shall Run
6047
+
Fig. 8.8 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notebook sketch related to
6048
+
We Shall Run, ca. 1963. Getty Research Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers,
6049
+
2006.M.24, box 1, folder 5. Used with Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
6050
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/436/#fig-436-b
6051
+
6052
+
6053
+
6054
+
6055
+
Bryan-Wilson 185
6056
+
Fig. 8.9 Yvonne Rainer (American, b. 1934). Notebook sketch related to
6057
+
We Shall Run, ca. 1963. Getty Research Institute, Yvonne Rainer Papers,
6058
+
2006.M.24, box 1, folder 5. Used with Permission. © Yvonne Rainer.
6059
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/436/#fig-436-c
6060
+
6061
+
6062
+
6063
+
6064
+
186 We Shall Run
6065
+
measure of ambiguity and uncertainty, if not actual
6066
+
illegibility with regard to how their procedures or directives
6067
+
might be adequately followed. How can the four elements of
6068
+
durational dance (space, time, force, and shape) be
6069
+
comprehensively translated onto a two-dimensional
6070
+
surface? These notations must be supplemented by moving-
6071
+
image documentation, oral instruction, or other bodily
6072
+
modes of transmission, as well as refined in rehearsals.
6073
+
Because of this they do not as readily circulate to be
6074
+
performed by others as do those scores that can be
6075
+
replicated and distributed with relative ease (such as musical
6076
+
notes on paper). Though Rainer has stated that “in some
6077
+
cases, the scores are indecipherable; in other cases, they
6078
+
will produce the dance accurately,” far fewer of her scores
6079
+
belong in the latter category, in part because she never
6080
+
adheres to any consistent scoring structure.12
6081
+
In this, Rainer is hardly unique. As the dance
6082
+
historian Mark Franko states, there is no single, widely
6083
+
embraced notational system for contemporary dance.13
6084
+
Even the Laban system (a standardized vocabulary for
6085
+
notating human movement that has been used to document
6086
+
dance since 1940 by the Dance Notation Bureau) has been
6087
+
viewed as insufficient; Merce Cunningham called it “out of
6088
+
whack,” dismissing it as “symbol syndrome.”14 Rainer, like
6089
+
Halprin and Cunningham before her, has expressed
6090
+
skepticism regarding notation for reconstructing her dances,
6091
+
not least because of the deficits of Labanotation for her
6092
+
iconic dance Trio A (1966).15 In part because the
6093
+
contemporary dance sphere has not regularized its scoring
6094
+
practices, it has infrequently interfaced with the legal
6095
+
apparatus of copyright or with the publication networks that
6096
+
distribute musical scores. “Dance notations have no precise
6097
+
cultural status,” remarks Laurence Louppe, having “never
6098
+
been the object of official interest, and even less of
6099
+
institutional interest.”16 Yet, when assessing the many
6100
+
forms that Rainer’s notations take, their improvised and
6101
+
makeshift quality stands out as a strength rather than a
6102
+
6103
+
Bryan-Wilson 187
6104
+
weakness. She was experimenting not only with moving
6105
+
bodies but also with nimbly creating new methods of
6106
+
transmission as she turned to the page for choreographing,
6107
+
communicating, and archiving gestures. The flexibility of her
6108
+
scoring practices meant that Rainer was able to test out the
6109
+
limits of indeterminacy in her compositions, since certain
6110
+
freedoms might be permitted within set parameters while
6111
+
others might be disallowed.
6112
+
Rainer’s scores—be they patterns, lists, drawings, or
6113
+
maps—make apparent the fundamental frictions involved in
6114
+
charting motion onto the page. As she played with different
6115
+
methods for chronicling action, she underlined how variable
6116
+
the use of the score could be in post-Cagean dance. In doing
6117
+
so, she revealed that the model of the textual score might
6118
+
have been fruitful for 1960s choreographers not despite but
6119
+
because of the fact that it was in some ways a bad fit for
6120
+
dance. Its inadequacies fueled more innovation.
6121
+
6122
+
Notes
6123
+
6124
+
1. See Carrie Lambert-Beatty’s writings about the challenges of
6125
+
representing Rainer’s dances, especially in her seminal monographic
6126
+
study, Being Watched: Yvonne Rainer and the 1960s (Cambridge, MA:
6127
+
MIT Press, 2008).
6128
+
2. For instance, “pattern” is used to describe the pencil-and-paper version
6129
+
of We Shall Run in Elise Archias, The Concrete Body: Yvonne Rainer,
6130
+
Carolee Schneemann, Vito Acconci (New Haven, CT: Yale University
6131
+
Press, 2016), 54. Peter Eleey calls a very similar plan (for the first part of
6132
+
Trio B, ca. 1968) a “sketch” in “If You Couldn’t See Me,” in Philip Bither,
6133
+
Trisha Brown: So That the Audience Does Not Know Whether I Have
6134
+
Stopped Dancing (Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, 2008), caption for fig.
6135
+
7. Lambert-Beatty refers to the graph-paper intervals of Parts of Some
6136
+
Sextets (1965) as both a “chart” and a “score” in Being Watched, 87–88.
6137
+
In her compendium Yvonne Rainer: Work 1961–73 (Halifax: Press of the
6138
+
Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1974), the artist interchangeably
6139
+
deploys many of these terms.
6140
+
3. Yvonne Rainer, Feelings Are Facts: A Life (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
6141
+
2006), 193.
6142
+
6143
+
6144
+
6145
+
6146
+
188 We Shall Run
6147
+
4. Anna Halprin, “Scores” (1969), in Moving toward Life: Five Decades of
6148
+
Transformational Dance, ed. Rachel Kaplan (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan
6149
+
University Press, 1995), 49–50.
6150
+
5. Robert Dunn, quoted in Sally Banes, Democracy’s Body: Judson Dance
6151
+
Theater, 1962–1964 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993), 7.
6152
+
6. Yvonne Rainer Papers, 1871–2013, bulk 1959–2013, 2006.M.24, box
6153
+
30, folder 11, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
6154
+
7. Deborah Jowitt, Time and the Dancing Image (Berkeley: University of
6155
+
California Press, 1988), 317.
6156
+
8. Brian Seibert, “A D.I.Y. Dance for Your Home, from Yvonne Rainer,” New
6157
+
York Times, 24 March 2020.
6158
+
9. Published accounts differ as to the exact cast of dancers who
6159
+
participated in the premiere of We Shall Run. Banes’s Democracy’s Body,
6160
+
Rainer’s Work 1961–73, and the published program (reproduced on page
6161
+
1 of Ana Janevski and Thomas J. Lax, Judson Dance Theater: The Work
6162
+
Is Never Done [New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2018]) offer slightly
6163
+
varying lists. A set of costume descriptions, held in Rainer’s papers at the
6164
+
Getty Research Institute and reproduced in the Archive section of this
6165
+
chapter, suggests this set of runners: Trisha Brown, Lucinda Childs,
6166
+
Philip Corner, June Ekman, Malcolm Goldstein, Sally Gross, Ruth
6167
+
Emerson, Alex Hay, Deborah Hay, Tony Holder, John Worden, and Arlene
6168
+
Rothlein. Later iterations, such as the version performed at the
6169
+
Wadsworth Atheneum in 1965 (see fig. 8.6), had different casts that
6170
+
included Rainer, Robert Rauschenberg, and Robert Morris.
6171
+
10. Carrie Lambert-Beatty, “More or Less Minimalism: Six Notes on
6172
+
Performance and Visual Art in the 1960s,” in A Minimal Future? Art as
6173
+
Object 1958–1968, ed. Ann Goldstein (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press / LA
6174
+
MOCA, 2004), 109.
6175
+
11. Banes, Democracy’s Body, 87.
6176
+
12. Interview with Yvonne Rainer in In Terms of Performance, ed. Shannon
6177
+
Jackson and Paula Marincola (Philadelphia: Pew Center for Arts &
6178
+
Heritage, 2016), http://intermsofperformance.site/interviews/yvonne
6179
+
-rainer.
6180
+
13. Mark Franko, “Writing for the Body: Notation, Reconstruction, and
6181
+
Reinvention in Dance,” Common Knowledge 17, no. 2 (2011): 321–34.
6182
+
14. Ann Hutchinson Guest, Labanotation: The System of Analyzing and
6183
+
Recording Movement (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1954); and Merce
6184
+
Cunningham, Changes (New York: Something Else Press, 1968), n.p.
6185
+
15. Yvonne Rainer, “Trio A: Genealogy, Documentation, Notation,” Dance
6186
+
Research Journal 41, no. 2 (2009): 12–18. In 2008, I learned Trio A from
6187
+
Rainer in lessons that focused on oral directions, hands-on
6188
+
demonstrations, and the building of muscle memory through practice.
6189
+
Though I did watch moving-image recordings of her performing the dance
6190
+
6191
+
6192
+
Bryan-Wilson 189
6193
+
for reference, at no point did she consult written documents or scores.
6194
+
See Julia Bryan-Wilson, “Practicing Trio A,” October 140 (Spring 2012):
6195
+
54–74.
6196
+
16. Laurence Louppe, ed., Traces of Dance: Drawings and Notations of
6197
+
Choreographers, trans. Brian Holmes (Paris: Editions Dis Voir, 1994), 5.
6198
+
6199
+
6200
+
6201
+
6202
+
190 We Shall Run
6203
+
9. Alison Knowles: The Identical
6204
+
Lunch (late 1960s–early ’70s)
6205
+
6206
+
Emily Ruth Capper
6207
+
6208
+
6209
+
6210
+
6211
+
Alison Knowles is the only woman among the founding
6212
+
members of Fluxus. With a background in painting and
6213
+
printmaking, Knowles graduated from Pratt Institute in
6214
+
Brooklyn in 1956, where she studied with the abstract
6215
+
expressionist painter Adolph Gottlieb and the German
6216
+
émigré illustrator and painter Richard Lindner.1 Her study of
6217
+
the visual arts left an imprint on her later work. Lindner, for
6218
+
example, directed his students to draw urban street scenes
6219
+
from life, an assignment that might be seen to reverberate in
6220
+
Knowles’s sustained interest in social observation.2 After
6221
+
graduation, Knowles studied briefly at Syracuse University
6222
+
with the famed Black Mountain College instructor Josef
6223
+
Albers.3 Although she was an uneasy fit for Albers’s
6224
+
occasionally strict approach to pedagogy, Knowles’s mature
6225
+
work builds upon the pragmatic aspect of his
6226
+
experimentalism. In an echo of Albers’s material studies,
6227
+
many of her works explore the manifold possibilities of
6228
+
ordinary and accessible materials, and Knowles’s goal of
6229
+
overcoming habitual perception through rigorous acts of
6230
+
attention is broadly consistent with Albers’s philosophy of
6231
+
visual education.4
6232
+
Though Knowles started out as a painter, she pushed
6233
+
the medium beyond its customary bounds by exploring the
6234
+
practice of silkscreen printing on canvas.5 In 1960, she met
6235
+
Dick Higgins, who would become her lifelong partner.6
6236
+
Trained in literature and music, Higgins had taken John
6237
+
Cage’s influential experimental composition course at the
6238
+
New School for Social Research in the summer of 1958,
6239
+
alongside George Brecht and Allan Kaprow (fig. 9.1).
6240
+
6241
+
................
6242
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/09/ 191
6243
+
Knowles came to know Cage’s work through Higgins and, in
6244
+
turn, became interested in chance procedures, which she
6245
+
adapted for use in her paintings, for instance by tossing
6246
+
coins and consulting the I Ching, the ancient Chinese book of
6247
+
divination, when deciding where to place colors.7
6248
+
The inaugural Fluxus concert tour to Europe in 1962
6249
+
marked a key turning point in her career. She had joined the
6250
+
tour as a committed performer of her friends’ event scores,
6251
+
but the pressure cooker of the nightly concerts inspired her
6252
+
to become a composer in her own right. As she recalled in
6253
+
1985: “We knew there were a few hundred people showing
6254
+
up each night, so we got it together, often just before the
6255
+
performance. It was under this duress and excitement that I
6256
+
started to write my own. I started with ‘Make a Salad.’”8
6257
+
First published under the title #2—Proposition (October,
6258
+
1962), the score for Make a Salad led to a premiere
6259
+
performance in which she did exactly that, chopping lettuce,
6260
+
cucumbers, and carrots and mixing these ingredients with
6261
+
blue cheese in a large pickle barrel (figs. 9.2, 9.3).9 In
6262
+
subsequent decades, experimental scores became a
6263
+
fundamental component of her practice: Knowles wrote new
6264
+
scores while repeatedly reworking and reinterpreting a few
6265
+
of her iconic early scores (principally Make a Salad and The
6266
+
Identical Lunch).
6267
+
One novel axis of Knowles’s work can be found in her
6268
+
distinctive use of materials and social rituals. While other
6269
+
Fluxus artists incorporated food into their event scores,
6270
+
Knowles explored particular foods at length while
6271
+
foregrounding the attendant rituals of preparing and serving
6272
+
them. For example, in an echo of the midcentury fashion for
6273
+
anthropological universals, she produced a series of works
6274
+
that playfully cataloged the many uses and meanings of a
6275
+
single ingredient: the bean. Her celebrated Fluxus multiple
6276
+
The Bean Rolls (1963) featured dried beans rattling around in
6277
+
a repurposed tea tin alongside more than a dozen rolls of
6278
+
paper, with quotes taken from her library research on the
6279
+
significance of beans across a number of world cultures (fig.
6280
+
6281
+
192 The Identical Lunch
6282
+
Fig. 9.1 Dick Higgins and Jackson Mac Low participating in John Cage’s
6283
+
experimental composition class, New School for Social Research, New
6284
+
York, NY, summer 1958. Photo: Harvey Y. Gross. Harvey Y. Gross/John
6285
+
Cage Trust.
6286
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/558/
6287
+
6288
+
6289
+
6290
+
6291
+
Capper 193
6292
+
Fig. 9.2 Alison Knowles (American, b. 1933). Score for #2—Proposition
6293
+
(October, 1962) (Make a Salad). From Alison Knowles, By Alison Knowles,
6294
+
A Great Bear Pamphlet (New York: Something Else Press, 1965), 2. Getty
6295
+
Research Institute, item 94-B22032. © Alison Knowles.
6296
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/475/
6297
+
6298
+
6299
+
6300
+
6301
+
194 The Identical Lunch
6302
+
Fig. 9.3 Alison Knowles performing #2—Proposition (October, 1962)
6303
+
(Make a Salad), at Festival of Misfits, Institute of Contemporary Arts,
6304
+
London, 24 October 1962, gelatin silver print. The Gilbert and Lila
6305
+
Silverman Fluxus Collection Gift. Digital Image © The Museum of Modern
6306
+
Art/Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY; © Alison Knowles.
6307
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/476/
6308
+
6309
+
6310
+
6311
+
6312
+
Capper 195
6313
+
9.4).10 The focus on beans grew out of her experience
6314
+
cooking inexpensive and nutritious meals, often for large
6315
+
groups of people, but she also took inspiration from Cage’s
6316
+
encyclopedic knowledge of mushrooms.11
6317
+
In Make a Salad (1962) and subsequent event
6318
+
scores, Knowles focused on cooking and eating as social
6319
+
processes. Others in her milieu, namely Cage and David
6320
+
Tudor, were similarly interested in cooking, particularly with
6321
+
Asian recipes and ingredients, but never considered this
6322
+
activity part of their formal creative practices.12 In crafting
6323
+
her scores, Knowles tinkered with the form of the recipe—
6324
+
with its list of accessible tools and ingredients and its direct
6325
+
and instrumental use of language—and explored the
6326
+
possibility that the event score and the recipe might be
6327
+
virtually coextensive forms.13 In Make a Salad and its
6328
+
companion piece, Make a Soup (1964), however, the recipe
6329
+
is reduced to an indeterminate skeleton, because Knowles
6330
+
does not list any particular ingredients or actions. Whereas
6331
+
the typical recipe takes for granted a definite outcome and
6332
+
assumed criteria for good and bad results, Knowles’s scores
6333
+
intentionally generate variation and even perplexity. She
6334
+
included the score for The Identical Lunch (late 1960s–early
6335
+
70s) in her Journal of the Identical Lunch (1971), a
6336
+
compendium of materials related to varied dimensions of the
6337
+
work as it was performed and realized. As with other books
6338
+
she produced, Knowles regarded it not as mere
6339
+
documentation but as an independent work.14
6340
+
Knowles’s Identical Lunch is one of the more difficult
6341
+
artworks in The Scores Project to describe, since it reorders
6342
+
the elements of score, realization, and documentation in
6343
+
novel ways. The nearly mythic story of its genesis is an
6344
+
important part of the work, so I will recount its broad
6345
+
outlines here. In 1965, Knowles and Higgins moved from
6346
+
their industrial SoHo loft to a large brownstone in Chelsea at
6347
+
238 West 22nd Street.15 They lived on the first floor with
6348
+
their twin daughters while Higgins operated Something Else
6349
+
Press on the second floor and Knowles shared a studio with
6350
+
6351
+
196 The Identical Lunch
6352
+
Fig. 9.4 Alison Knowles (American, b. 1933). Bean Rolls from Fluxkit,
6353
+
1965, metal tin with offset label, containing nine beans and fourteen offset
6354
+
scrolls. Museum of Modern Art, item 2182.2008.10. The Gilbert and Lila
6355
+
Silverman Fluxus Collection Gift. Digital Image © The Museum of Modern
6356
+
Art / Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY; © Alison Knowles.
6357
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/477/
6358
+
6359
+
6360
+
6361
+
6362
+
Capper 197
6363
+
the Fluxus composer Philip Corner on the top floor.16
6364
+
Sometime in 1967, when her daughters were toddlers,
6365
+
Knowles developed the habit of getting out of the house for
6366
+
lunch. She would walk a few blocks to a bustling
6367
+
neighborhood diner called Riss Restaurant and repeatedly
6368
+
order the same meal: “a tunafish sandwich on wheat toast
6369
+
with lettuce and butter, no mayo and a large glass of
6370
+
buttermilk.”17 Knowles notes that this lunch, while ordinary,
6371
+
was the diner’s best offering. Ordering the same thing as a
6372
+
matter of routine also saved her time and energy, freeing her
6373
+
mind to think of other things. Knowles herself called it “a
6374
+
convenience and time-saver.”18
6375
+
Corner, who was her frequent lunch companion in
6376
+
those days, prompted a transformation of the ontology of
6377
+
the lunch from an unconscious habit to a highly self-
6378
+
conscious performance. One day in 1968, he pointed out
6379
+
that her order resembled an event score. In a test of Corner’s
6380
+
thesis, Knowles began to document her daily lunch
6381
+
performances in what she called her “Journal of the Identical
6382
+
Lunch.” She subsequently published excerpts from this
6383
+
journal in an experimental literary magazine, The Outsider, in
6384
+
which she also set down the first formal version of the score,
6385
+
which reads: “a tunafish sandwich on wheat toast with
6386
+
lettuce and butter, no mayo and a large glass of buttermilk
6387
+
was and is eaten many days of each week at the same place
6388
+
at about the same time.”19 Over the next few years, Knowles
6389
+
disseminated the score among a network of friends. In turn,
6390
+
she asked them to realize The Identical Lunch and share
6391
+
documentation of these realizations, which she compiled in
6392
+
1971 as Journal of the Identical Lunch. This publication,
6393
+
which was in a sense collaborative, inspired further
6394
+
realizations, such as Philip Corner’s 1973 book, George
6395
+
Maciunas’s symphony version, and other versions by
6396
+
Knowles herself.
6397
+
The complex ontology of Knowles’s score for The
6398
+
Identical Lunch is crystallized in the form of its single
6399
+
sentence, particularly in its use of multiple tenses and
6400
+
6401
+
198 The Identical Lunch
6402
+
temporalities. She employs both the past and present tense
6403
+
when she writes that “a tunafish sandwich . . . was and is
6404
+
eaten.” In her Journal of the Identical Lunch, Knowles adds
6405
+
the future tense, asserting that, “New Lunches will include
6406
+
many other people and their own performances.”20 Knowles
6407
+
thereby makes explicit the often implicit temporality of the
6408
+
score, which exists in the present and intends future action
6409
+
but also conjures a speculative history of past performance.
6410
+
As discussed in chapter 11, Allan Kaprow’s “activity
6411
+
booklets” similarly condense multiple temporalities of the
6412
+
score through his use of documentary photographs that are
6413
+
posed and framed to be prescriptive and future-oriented.
6414
+
Consonant with Knowles’s use of the past tense in
6415
+
the score, she devotes most of her Journal to a rich variety of
6416
+
documentation of various performances: We flip through
6417
+
Riss receipts, hand-drawn diagrams, documentary
6418
+
photographs, and correspondence on index cards. Emerging
6419
+
from this material diversity is a polyphony of individual
6420
+
voices, with each performer-documentarian describing a
6421
+
unique scene or experience of the lunch. Such variation
6422
+
underscores a fundamental Cagean conceit of the work: that
6423
+
the identical in name is hardly identical in reality, and even
6424
+
less so when taking account of an individual’s experience of
6425
+
it.
6426
+
Several performer-documentarians in Knowles’s
6427
+
Journal exhibit an unsettlingly detailed mode of attention,
6428
+
applying the technique of formalist close looking to the point
6429
+
of absurdity and even grotesquery. Knowles herself charts
6430
+
minute changes in the water content of the tuna she is
6431
+
served, detecting a consistent weekly cycle, though
6432
+
refraining from drawing any conclusions (such as those one
6433
+
might expect from, say, a Department of Health inspector).
6434
+
The precise meaning of the cycle, hence the purpose of her
6435
+
diligent effort, remains suspended and open to further
6436
+
interpretation.
6437
+
In the artist Tom Wasmuth’s documentation, a
6438
+
formalist exercise in close looking veers beyond the lunch
6439
+
6440
+
Capper 199
6441
+
itself to the diner’s custodian, whom he marks with an ethnic
6442
+
stereotype, and then to the diner’s floor. Wasmuth’s hand-
6443
+
drawn diagram of a tiled floor at another establishment (the
6444
+
“White Diamond”) almost resembles an art historian’s
6445
+
sketch of an ancient Roman marble floor in its precision and
6446
+
apparent seriousness of purpose (fig. 9.5). Meanwhile, the
6447
+
writer and musician Lynn Lonidier experiments with a
6448
+
perversely close analysis of an employee’s appearance,
6449
+
noting “the wrinkled flesh puckering from the waitress’s
6450
+
arms.”21 Knowles herself records precise dates and uses
6451
+
somewhat obscure code names for regular customers and
6452
+
workers, for example “N” for herself, “F” for someone she
6453
+
calls “The Dog-woman,” and “E” for “Flo, afternoon
6454
+
waitress.”22 And Higgins, with a touch of noir, refers to
6455
+
himself the consumer as a “suspect” observed in the third
6456
+
person: “at 12:52½ suspect completed the consumption of
6457
+
the sandwich.”23
6458
+
The Journal’s sometimes humorously detailed
6459
+
observations can convey a feeling of ambivalence about the
6460
+
ritual itself. Lonidier describes her aversion to eating the
6461
+
lunch by using the term “nausea,” and she is not the only
6462
+
performer-documentarian in Knowles’s Journal to do so. In
6463
+
the postwar period, a can of tuna was an ambivalent object
6464
+
for economic and political reasons: It was a paradigmatic
6465
+
product of consumer society, and as such a totem of
6466
+
industrial capitalism’s fundamental contradictions. It was
6467
+
affordable, relatively nutritious, and easy to prepare, thus
6468
+
capable of liberating working mothers—a demographic that
6469
+
included Knowles herself—from some degree of household
6470
+
drudgery. On the other hand, the mass-produced cans of
6471
+
processed meat could seem unnatural, formless, smelly,
6472
+
unappetizing, and more fit for cats than people. The glass of
6473
+
buttermilk Knowles orders is a similarly ambivalent object
6474
+
when viewed in its historical context. In their Journal,
6475
+
Knowles records having increasing difficulty obtaining it at
6476
+
Riss, presumably due to low demand. The obsolescence of
6477
+
buttermilk as a popular beverage at the time may explain
6478
+
6479
+
200 The Identical Lunch
6480
+
Fig. 9.5 Tom Wasmuth (American, b. 1941). Diagram, 24 June 1969.
6481
+
From Alison Knowles’s Journal of the Identical Lunch (San Francisco: Nova
6482
+
Broadcast Press, 1971), 35. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown
6483
+
Collection, item 91-B35085. Courtesy of Nova Broadcast Press. © Alison
6484
+
Knowles.
6485
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/478/
6486
+
6487
+
6488
+
6489
+
6490
+
Capper 201
6491
+
Knowles’s decision to add “or a cup of soup” as a possible
6492
+
alternative in all but the first iteration of the score.
6493
+
With this sociohistorical context in mind, Knowles’s
6494
+
transformation of the habitual lunch through conscious
6495
+
attention and reflection takes on added complexity. In the
6496
+
many interviews Knowles has given since the 1970s, she
6497
+
has sometimes described The Identical Lunch as a call to find
6498
+
meaning in the most ordinary things through a meditative
6499
+
practice of what we might now call mindfulness.24 In these
6500
+
instances, she suggests that any favorite lunch will do,
6501
+
because it is the quality of disciplined attention that matters
6502
+
most. She has also occasionally allowed that there may be a
6503
+
politically progressive dimension to her use of food, since
6504
+
preparing and serving staples like salads, beans, and tuna
6505
+
has been the province of women and low-paid workers and
6506
+
thus systemically undervalued if not simply ignored. One
6507
+
could argue that framing such labor as art can help to make it
6508
+
visible. Alongside these committed gestures in The Identical
6509
+
Lunch, we can still detect an ambivalent energy in Knowles’s
6510
+
1970s-era realizations. In this way, the ordinariness of the
6511
+
lunch maintains at least a measure of negativity and thus
6512
+
preserves, in a playful manner, a reflection on alienation
6513
+
under modern capitalism.
6514
+
Teasing out one feminist dimension of The Identical
6515
+
Lunch, the art historian Nicole L. Woods sees Knowles’s
6516
+
work in the diner as a means of negotiating “her labour as an
6517
+
artist and her labour as a mother.”25 Indeed, as a mother of
6518
+
toddlers in the 1960s, Knowles took her place as a domestic
6519
+
worker alongside other workers on their lunch breaks. In
6520
+
2000, Knowles herself noted, with regard to Make a Salad,
6521
+
that she “was the only woman in the original Fluxus group,
6522
+
so the piece had a dynamic feminist twist as well.”26 In a
6523
+
foregrounding of care work, Knowles developed a distinct
6524
+
strain of realizations of The Identical Lunch in which she
6525
+
began to prepare and serve the meal herself, such that the
6526
+
original setting of the Riss diner recedes into the
6527
+
background. For the 1969 New Year’s Eve Flux-Feast at the
6528
+
6529
+
202 The Identical Lunch
6530
+
Fluxhouse Cooperative in SoHo, Knowles created a
6531
+
makeshift diner of her own in the manner of a
6532
+
“happening.”27 Inside a translucent enclosure made of
6533
+
shower curtains, Knowles prepared and served the identical
6534
+
lunch to individual participants.28 Here, the quasi-
6535
+
ethnographic dimension of The Identical Lunch persisted:
6536
+
Knowles took Polaroids of the participants eating lunch,
6537
+
some of which she transferred to silkscreen and printed on
6538
+
canvas.
6539
+
In tandem with Knowles’s rising status in the history
6540
+
of art, The Identical Lunch has achieved iconic status, not
6541
+
unlike Cage’s 4′33″ (1952). In part, this is because
6542
+
universities and art museums have leveraged the work’s
6543
+
participatory and functional dimensions to engage with
6544
+
students and patrons. In 2011, participants could sign up to
6545
+
eat an Identical Lunch in the Museum of Modern Art’s café,
6546
+
with the artist herself in attendance.29 Later, in 2013, at the
6547
+
Smart Museum at the University of Chicago, a version of the
6548
+
original Identical Lunch (buttermilk included) was added to
6549
+
the museum café’s menu. Regarding visits to colleges and
6550
+
universities, Knowles noted: “I would definitely propose that
6551
+
my audience have The Identical Lunch with me when I was
6552
+
through with my talk. And sometimes they could do that—
6553
+
they’d make us 50 identical lunches. Of course I couldn’t
6554
+
always get a kitchen to make it, and I didn’t enjoy eating it in
6555
+
front of my audience and not having them have any.”30 In the
6556
+
gig economy of contemporary art, the meanings of The
6557
+
Identical Lunch have shifted from an observation-based
6558
+
working-class lunch to an iconic, highly recognizable
6559
+
performance. These newer meanings multiply and ramify
6560
+
further in the ongoing reception and interpretation of
6561
+
Knowles’s Identical Lunch, which range from new modes of
6562
+
cooking-as-world-making, to reflections on the twenty-first-
6563
+
century equivalent of tuna and the commodity character of
6564
+
food.
6565
+
6566
+
6567
+
6568
+
6569
+
Capper 203
6570
+
Notes
6571
+
6572
+
1. Alison Knowles, “Curriculum Vitae,” in Indigo Island: Art Works by Alison
6573
+
Knowles (Saarbrücken, Germany: Stadtgalerie Saarbrücken, 1994), 117.
6574
+
2. Hannah B. Higgins, “Love’s Labor’s Lost and Found: A Meditation on
6575
+
Fluxus, Family, and Something Else,” Art Journal 69, nos. 1–2 (May
6576
+
2010): 13. Knowles herself said, “For me the real world is the right place
6577
+
to start from, whether you are making art, a performance, music, or
6578
+
dinner.” Alison Knowles, interview by Linda M. Montano, in Linda M.
6579
+
Montano, Performance Artists Talking in the Eighties: Sex, Food, Money/
6580
+
Fame, Ritual/Death (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 173.
6581
+
3. Higgins, “Love’s Labor’s Lost and Found,” 12. Higgins does not say when
6582
+
Knowles studied with Albers, but it was likely during the summer of 1957,
6583
+
when Albers served as Visiting Instructor in Pictorial Design at Syracuse
6584
+
University’s School of Art. See the Josef and Anni Albers Foundation
6585
+
Chronology, https://www.albersfoundation.org/alberses/chronology/.
6586
+
4. Eva Díaz, The Experimenters: Chance and Design at Black Mountain
6587
+
College (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015); and Jeffrey
6588
+
Saletnik, Josef Albers, Late Modernism, and Pedagogic Form (Chicago:
6589
+
University of Chicago Press, 2022).
6590
+
5. Díaz, Experimenters, 13. Dick Higgins identifies Knowles as “a silk-
6591
+
screen cameraman by trade” in his “Publisher’s Foreword” to The Four
6592
+
Suits: Benjamin Patterson, Philip Corner, Alison Knowles, and Tomas
6593
+
Schmit (New York: Something Else Press, 1965), xii. He continues, “and
6594
+
so it was natural that she should be about the first to do the kind of
6595
+
multiple overlay silk screen printing that was later associated with
6596
+
Rauschenberg, Warhol, etc” (xii).
6597
+
6. Knowles and Higgins’s daughter Hannah B. Higgins establishes that her
6598
+
parents met in 1960 in “Eleven Snapshots of Dick Higgins,” in
6599
+
Intermedia, Fluxus and the Something Else Press: Selected Writings by
6600
+
Dick Higgins, ed. Steve Clay and Ken Friedman (Catskill, NY: Siglio,
6601
+
2018), 335. She also writes, “They married (1960), divorced (1970),
6602
+
became neighbors (1975), and remarried (1985) in an open manner, and
6603
+
lived a complex life ever after.” Higgins, “Love’s Labor’s Lost and Found,”
6604
+
14.
6605
+
7. Nicole L. Woods writes that “Knowles’s paintings in the late 1950s . . .
6606
+
used the I-Ching for color placement,” although she does not specify
6607
+
exactly how. Nicole L. Woods, “Object/Poems: Alison Knowles’s
6608
+
Feminist Archite(x)ture,” XTRA 15, no. 1 (2012): 16. Little is known
6609
+
about Knowles’s early paintings, probably because the artist burned
6610
+
most of them once she became involved with Fluxus, according to
6611
+
Higgins, “Love’s Labor’s Lost and Found,” 13.
6612
+
6613
+
6614
+
6615
+
6616
+
204 The Identical Lunch
6617
+
8. Alison Knowles, quoted in Estera Milman, “Road Shows, Street Events,
6618
+
and Fluxus People: A Conversation with Alison Knowles” (1985), Visible
6619
+
Language 26, nos. 1–2 (1992): 98.
6620
+
9. Nicole L. Woods notes that, while Make a Salad was first published and
6621
+
listed as #2 in Knowles’s first book of scores, the ordering was Dick
6622
+
Higgins’s mistake. Nicole L. Woods, “Taste Economies: Alison Knowles,
6623
+
Gordon Matta-Clark and the Intersection of Food, Time and
6624
+
Performance,” Performance Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts
6625
+
19, no. 3 (2014): 157. On the ingredients, see Mari Dumett, “Alison
6626
+
Knowles: Ritual and Routine,” in Corporate Imaginations: Fluxus
6627
+
Strategies for Living (Berkeley: University of California Press), 282.
6628
+
10. Knowles, in Montano, Performance Artists Talking in the Eighties, 174.
6629
+
11. Knowles cited the New York Mycological Society, cofounded by Cage in
6630
+
1962, as an important influence. Knowles, “Curriculum Vitae,” 117.
6631
+
12. See David Tudor, Recipes for Rum Coconut, Milk au Diable, Lime Pickle,
6632
+
and Buttermilk, ca. 1960s, David Tudor Papers, 980039, box 39, folders
6633
+
1–2, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
6634
+
13. On cooking as meditation, see Montano, Performance Artists Talking in
6635
+
the Eighties, 175. On the score as recipe, see Milman, “Road Shows,”
6636
+
104; and Dumett, “Alison Knowles: Ritual and Routine,” 281. Knowles
6637
+
makes explicit the latent connection we might observe in the Getty
6638
+
Research Institute’s David Tudor archive between his secondary
6639
+
realizations and his hand-copied recipes (see chapter 2).
6640
+
14. On Knowles’s creative approach to the form of the book, see Julia
6641
+
Robinson, “The Sculpture of Indeterminacy: Alison Knowles’s Beans and
6642
+
Variations,” Art Journal 63, no. 4 (2004): 96–115.
6643
+
15. Knowles publishes her exact address in Alison Knowles, By Alison
6644
+
Knowles, A Great Bear Pamphlet (New York: Something Else Press,
6645
+
1965), 15.
6646
+
16. Alison Knowles and Hannah B. Higgins, “Notes toward Indigo Island: A
6647
+
Conversation between Alison Knowles and Hannah Higgins,” in
6648
+
Knowles, 100; and Dumett, “Alison Knowles: Ritual and Routine,” 279.
6649
+
17. Alison Knowles, “The Identical Lunch,” The Outsider 2, nos. 4–5 (1968/
6650
+
69): 182.
6651
+
18. Knowles, “Identical Lunch,” 182.
6652
+
19. Knowles, “Identical Lunch,” 182.
6653
+
20. Alison Knowles, Journal of the Identical Lunch (San Francisco: Nova
6654
+
Broadcast Press, 1971), inside front cover.
6655
+
21. Knowles, Journal of the Identical Lunch (1971), 2.
6656
+
22. Knowles, Journal of the Identical Lunch (1971), 10.
6657
+
23. Higgins, quoted in Knowles, Journal of the Identical Lunch (1971), 5.
6658
+
24. See, for example, Allie Wist, “When a Tuna Fish Sandwich Becomes a
6659
+
Work of Art: An Interview with ‘The Identical Lunch’ artist Alison
6660
+
6661
+
6662
+
Capper 205
6663
+
Knowles about Tuna Sandwiches, Performance Art, and How Our Daily
6664
+
Rituals Can Be Vehicles for Inspiration,” Saveur, 14 March 2018, https://
6665
+
www.saveur.com/interview-identical-lunch-alison-knowles.
6666
+
25. Woods, “Taste Economies,” 159.
6667
+
26. Knowles, quoted in Montano, Performance Artists Talking in the Eighties,
6668
+
173.
6669
+
27. George Maciunas, “Invitation to Participate in New Years Eve’s Flux-
6670
+
Feast” (1969), reprinted in Emmett Williams and Ann Noel, Mr. Fluxus: A
6671
+
Collective Portrait of George Maciunas (New York: Random House,
6672
+
1998), 163; and Dumett, “Alison Knowles: Ritual and Routine,” 302.
6673
+
28. Knowles recalled in 2008: “I got a shower curtain and I isolated a little
6674
+
space in the corner of the room and then I invited particular people to
6675
+
come and I served them a lunch. I had a toaster in there, and I’d mixed up
6676
+
the tuna fish and I had the lettuce. They’d sit down and eat the lunch there
6677
+
and I’d take a Polaroid of them eating and then they could talk to me about
6678
+
whatever.” Alison Knowles, in discussion with Jessica Lynne Santone,
6679
+
22 October 2008, in Jessica Lynne Santone, “Circulating the Event: The
6680
+
Social Life of Performance Documentation, 1965–1975” (PhD diss.,
6681
+
McGill University, 2010), 102.
6682
+
29. “The Museum of Modern Art’s Performance Exhibition Series Continues
6683
+
in January 2011 with Eclectic Group of Performances,” press release, 20
6684
+
December 2010, https://assets.moma.org/documents/moma_press
6685
+
-release_387221.pdf.
6686
+
30. Wist, “When a Tuna Fish Sandwich Becomes a Work of Art,” n.p.
6687
+
6688
+
6689
+
6690
+
6691
+
206 The Identical Lunch
6692
+
10. Mieko Shiomi: Spatial Poem
6693
+
(1965–75)
6694
+
6695
+
Natilee Harren
6696
+
6697
+
6698
+
6699
+
6700
+
“Write a word (or words) on the enclosed card and
6701
+
place it somewhere.”
6702
+
6703
+
With this simple instruction, titled Spatial Poem No.
6704
+
1 (Word Event) and sent out to an international mailing list of
6705
+
over a hundred Fluxus affiliates, Mieko (née Chieko) Shiomi
6706
+
launched her Spatial Poem project in 1965. Ultimately,
6707
+
Spatial Poem encompassed nine scores composed across a
6708
+
decade of Shiomi’s practice and engaged more than 230
6709
+
collaborators who reported their realizations of the artist’s
6710
+
instructions back to her by mail from twenty-six different
6711
+
countries (fig. 10.1). Spatial Poem is an apt emblem and
6712
+
metaphor of the global network of intermedial, experimental
6713
+
notation practices that began to formalize in the mid-1960s
6714
+
and continued to expand into the 1970s and beyond. Its
6715
+
structure integrated the composition, execution, and
6716
+
documentation of individual scores and their performance
6717
+
into a single holistic project of a performative-conceptual
6718
+
nature. Shiomi’s project was rare among experimental
6719
+
notation practices of the time for its attempt to actually
6720
+
gather and compare diverse realizations.
6721
+
Incredibly ambitious in scope by the time it
6722
+
concluded, Spatial Poem’s origins were urgently practical. In
6723
+
spring 1965, after a busy season rushing between avant-
6724
+
garde events at various concert halls and artist lofts in New
6725
+
York, Shiomi grew concerned with the limitations of space
6726
+
and time that hampered the full integration of her artistic
6727
+
community. As a response to the “inconvenience of
6728
+
communication,”1 as the artist put it, Shiomi suggested to
6729
+
leading Fluxus organizer George Maciunas “a do-it-yourself
6730
+
6731
+
................
6732
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/10/ 207
6733
+
Fig. 10.1 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938). List of participants
6734
+
in Spatial Poem (Nos. 1–4), ca. 1972, offset print. Getty Research Institute,
6735
+
Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 47, folder 3. Used by permission of Mieko
6736
+
Shiomi.
6737
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/515/
6738
+
6739
+
6740
+
6741
+
6742
+
208 Spatial Poem
6743
+
work that takes place on the whole earth as its stage, on
6744
+
which many people living away from me can interpret the
6745
+
event in their own ways and send me their reports.”2
6746
+
Enthusiastic about the idea, Maciunas offered to contribute
6747
+
his design acumen to the project’s documentation. The
6748
+
fascinating dialogue between the two artists is captured in
6749
+
the Archive section of this chapter; it includes Shiomi’s
6750
+
sensitive warnings to Maciunas about his increasingly
6751
+
“autocratic” management of Fluxus affairs.
6752
+
Shiomi launched Word Event in New York and
6753
+
orchestrated the remaining eight poems from her home in
6754
+
Okayama and later from Osaka, cities far from Tokyo, the
6755
+
center of the Japanese avant-garde. Tied to these provincial
6756
+
sites due to caregiving responsibilities, she found that “the
6757
+
mailbox outside was a marvelous window open toward the
6758
+
world.”3 Furthermore, Shiomi understood the liberating
6759
+
potential of reframing the everyday through the notion of the
6760
+
event. “We have a ton of obligations, and tasks, and many,
6761
+
many trivial things,” she has said. “But when you look at
6762
+
things as an event, your mind is free from that kind of task.
6763
+
It’s very free and released.”4 Shiomi has identified her
6764
+
practice as being rooted in the experience of loss and having
6765
+
to make do with very little, a sanguine outlook undeniably
6766
+
linked to her experience during World War II Japan,
6767
+
specifically the trauma of her childhood possessions being
6768
+
destroyed in a 1945 air raid.
6769
+
When Shiomi first turned to writing text scores as a
6770
+
young artist in the early 1960s, she initially referred to them
6771
+
as “action poems.” These pieces—including Mirror Piece,
6772
+
Wind Music, and Shadow Piece (all 1963)—encouraged a
6773
+
poetically flexible interpretation of language that might
6774
+
reframe and transform the reader’s experience of everyday
6775
+
phenomena, particularly in the natural world. Shiomi began
6776
+
this work following her musicology studies at Tokyo National
6777
+
University of Fine Arts and Music (also known as Geidai,
6778
+
now called Tokyo University of the Arts), where she wrote a
6779
+
thesis on the twelve-tone technique of Anton Webern and
6780
+
6781
+
Harren 209
6782
+
performed works by Arnold Schoenberg. Crucially during
6783
+
that time, she formed the groundbreaking Group Ongaku
6784
+
(Group Music, ca. 1959–62) with peers Takehisa Kosugi,
6785
+
Shūkō Mizuno, Mikio Tojima, Yumiko Tanno, Gen’ichi Tsuge,
6786
+
and Yasunao Tone in order to probe the boundaries of music
6787
+
through collective improvisation. Shiomi’s formative work
6788
+
with Group Ongaku laid the foundation for her individual
6789
+
exploration of the dynamics between the singular event and
6790
+
its simultaneous occurrence with other events. In an essay
6791
+
published in the September 1960 issue of Nijisseiki buyō
6792
+
(Twentieth-Century Dance), featuring a number of
6793
+
statements by Group Ongaku members, Shiomi advocated a
6794
+
practice of “sonic collage,” which embraces the chance
6795
+
dialogue created by simultaneous yet independently derived
6796
+
sounds.5 In March 1962, she presented her new
6797
+
experimental practice in a solo concert at Okayama Cultural
6798
+
Center Hall, including works realized from graphic scores
6799
+
along with examples of what she considered “action music”:
6800
+
walking around the stage, piling up matchboxes, and saying
6801
+
numbers at random.
6802
+
As Shiomi’s trajectory illustrates, transpacific
6803
+
conversations between American and Japanese figures in
6804
+
the postwar experimental music, performance, and
6805
+
intermedial visual art worlds that The Scores Project
6806
+
highlights were virtually immediate, thereby troubling the
6807
+
idea that aesthetic innovations could be traced to any one
6808
+
center. Following signal encounters with the artists Toshi
6809
+
Ichiyanagi and Nam June Paik, Shiomi became involved in
6810
+
Fluxus in 1963. When she first met Paik, at a concert at
6811
+
Tokyo’s Sogetsu Hall in 1963, he proclaimed that she was
6812
+
already a Fluxus artist. Indeed, Maciunas was by that time
6813
+
familiar with her work, as Ichiyanagi (who had recently
6814
+
returned to Japan after seven years in New York, some of
6815
+
which were spent studying with John Cage) had sent several
6816
+
of Shiomi’s scores to Maciunas in January 1962, before the
6817
+
official launch of Fluxus. In the same period of Shiomi’s first
6818
+
meeting with Paik, she visited Yoko Ono’s apartment in
6819
+
6820
+
210 Spatial Poem
6821
+
Tokyo, where she encountered scores by George Brecht, and
6822
+
began to think of her evolving notational language in relation
6823
+
to the Fluxus concept of the event.
6824
+
Another important moment of exchange that Shiomi
6825
+
likely witnessed during this period was An Exhibition of
6826
+
World Graphic Scores, mounted in November 1962 by
6827
+
Ichiyanagi and Kuniharu Akiyama at Tokyo’s Minami Gallery
6828
+
on the occasion of Cage and David Tudor’s first visit to
6829
+
Japan. By December 1963, Maciunas had in hand Shiomi’s
6830
+
complete works and was planning a Fluxus edition.
6831
+
Encouraged by Akiyama and Maciunas, with whom Shiomi
6832
+
was now in regular contact, she traveled with Shigeko
6833
+
Kubota on a tourist visa to New York City in the summer of
6834
+
1964 to immerse herself in the Fluxus milieu. Her complete
6835
+
works were ultimately published by Fluxus that year under
6836
+
the name Chieko Shiomi (she had yet to take on the name
6837
+
Mieko) and the title Events and Games (1964).
6838
+
Shiomi’s Spatial Poem series adapted concepts from
6839
+
her early action poems, relating simple actions to highly
6840
+
subjective notions of time and space. Through nine different
6841
+
instructions, interpreters were invited to think about and
6842
+
respond to concepts and actions of direction, falling,
6843
+
shadows, opening, orbiting, sound, wind, and
6844
+
disappearance. Although the scores clearly relate to the
6845
+
genre of Fluxus events, Shiomi hewed to the conceptual
6846
+
framework of poetry, drawing from a longstanding
6847
+
investment in literature that had preceded her advanced
6848
+
studies in music. Additionally, she requested that
6849
+
participants’ reports include the specific place and/or time of
6850
+
the action’s completion. Anticipating this framework was
6851
+
Shiomi’s score Direction Music for Fingers (1964), which
6852
+
she performed in New York as part of a solo presentation in
6853
+
October 1964 at Washington Square Gallery, coinciding
6854
+
with a yearlong “Perpetual Fluxfest” (figs. 10.2, 10.3).
6855
+
The piece not only was a response to her growing
6856
+
concerns about the abiding spatiotemporal limitations on
6857
+
creative activity but also anticipated her discovery of a
6858
+
6859
+
Harren 211
6860
+
Fig. 10.2 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938). Direction Music for
6861
+
Fingers, September 1964, photocopy of handwritten score on lined paper.
6862
+
Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 47, folder 3.
6863
+
Used by permission of Mieko Shiomi.
6864
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/516/
6865
+
6866
+
6867
+
6868
+
6869
+
212 Spatial Poem
6870
+
Fig. 10.3 Mieko Shiomi (left, arms raised) performing Direction Music for
6871
+
Fingers at Washington Square Gallery (Allan Kaprow is at right,
6872
+
foreground), New York, NY, 30 October 1964. Photograph by Peter Moore;
6873
+
© Northwestern University.
6874
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/517/
6875
+
6876
+
6877
+
6878
+
6879
+
Harren 213
6880
+
broader solution to this problem in Spatial Poem. For
6881
+
Direction Music for Fingers, Shiomi invited participants to
6882
+
write a real or imagined location on a card and then attach
6883
+
the card to a string, the other end of which was tied to one of
6884
+
her fingers. The participant then affixed the card to a point
6885
+
reaching toward the chosen location. Peter Moore’s
6886
+
photograph of the event shows Allan Kaprow consulting a
6887
+
map of Manhattan while Shiomi, arms raised, sits at the
6888
+
center of a new, provisional spatial network (see fig. 10.3).
6889
+
Taking up again the notion of direction for Spatial Poem No.
6890
+
2 (Direction Event) (1965), she explained her poetic intent in
6891
+
a letter to Maciunas: “I meant ‘direction’ not only direction
6892
+
on compass[;] in this poem it is rather the state of
6893
+
consciousness of the relation between yourself and [the]
6894
+
outside world” (fig. 10.4).6
6895
+
Mostly from afar, Shiomi collaborated with Maciunas
6896
+
to create records of the first four Spatial Poem events in the
6897
+
form of object editions in line with the aesthetics of ongoing
6898
+
Fluxus publishing endeavors. Each edition plays cleverly
6899
+
with the given poem’s concept, inviting quasi-performative
6900
+
engagement as the reader inspects it. We are invited to
6901
+
delicately maneuver tiny paper flags (fig. 10.5), unfurl an
6902
+
enormous paper map (fig. 10.6), let fall the pages of a wacky
6903
+
calendar (fig. 10.7), and gently thread a roll of microfilm
6904
+
through a handheld viewer (fig. 10.8). Like many Fluxus
6905
+
affiliates, Shiomi sometimes protested Maciunas’s
6906
+
overbearing designs, but, in general, the two artists
6907
+
sustained a productive long-distance collaboration until
6908
+
Maciunas’s chronic illness made this impossible. (Shiomi
6909
+
had wanted him ultimately to design collective reports for all
6910
+
nine poems.)
6911
+
Spatial Poem transforms the utopian ideal of the
6912
+
indeterminate or open-form work’s potential for infinite
6913
+
possibility into a carefully documented program that has
6914
+
been preserved for later cross-examination. Indeed for
6915
+
Shiomi, the opportunity to compare multifarious
6916
+
interpretations is the most compelling aspect of composing
6917
+
6918
+
214 Spatial Poem
6919
+
Fig. 10.4 Letter from Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi to George Maciunas, ca.
6920
+
1965, photocopy of typewritten text on paper. Getty Research Institute,
6921
+
Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 31, folder 30. Used by permission of
6922
+
Mieko Shiomi.
6923
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/536/
6924
+
6925
+
6926
+
6927
+
6928
+
Harren 215
6929
+
Fig. 10.5 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938); George Maciunas
6930
+
(Lithuanian American, 1931–78). Object edition of Spatial Poem No. 1
6931
+
(Word Event), 1965, clear plastic box with hinged lid and cork-covered
6932
+
bottom with paper-flag pins. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers,
6933
+
890164, box 225. Used by permission of Mieko Shiomi and Billie Maciunas.
6934
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/525/
6935
+
6936
+
6937
+
6938
+
6939
+
216 Spatial Poem
6940
+
Fig. 10.6 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938); George Maciunas
6941
+
(Lithuanian American, 1931–78). Object edition of Spatial Poem No. 2
6942
+
(Direction Event), 1966, offset print. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown
6943
+
Papers, 890164, flat file 37**. Used by permission of Mieko Shiomi and
6944
+
Billie Maciunas.
6945
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/526/
6946
+
6947
+
6948
+
6949
+
6950
+
Harren 217
6951
+
Fig. 10.7 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938); George Maciunas
6952
+
(Lithuanian American, 1931–78). Object edition of Spatial Poem No. 3 (a
6953
+
fluxcalender), 1968, two sets of printed calendar pages (14 × 10.8 cm),
6954
+
one housed loose inside a wood box with a hinged lid and metal clasp, the
6955
+
other bolted into book form on a strap of leather. Getty Research Institute,
6956
+
Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 223. Used by permission of Mieko Shiomi
6957
+
and Billie Maciunas.
6958
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/527/
6959
+
6960
+
6961
+
6962
+
6963
+
218 Spatial Poem
6964
+
Fig. 10.8 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938); George Maciunas
6965
+
(Lithuanian American, 1931–78). Object edition of Spatial Poem No. 4 (a
6966
+
fluxmovie), 1973, white plastic box with a hinged lid containing a roll of
6967
+
microfilm mounted on a miniature green plastic viewer. Getty Research
6968
+
Institute, Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 219. Digital Image © The
6969
+
Museum of Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY. The Gilbert
6970
+
and Lila Silverman Fluxus Collection Gift. © 2024 Mieko Shiomi.
6971
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/528/
6972
+
6973
+
6974
+
6975
+
6976
+
Harren 219
6977
+
open-ended scores. In 1973 she reflected, “The reports
6978
+
returned by various people are very diverse and full of
6979
+
individuality—some poetic, some realistic or cynical, some
6980
+
artificial, some spontaneous, etc. When they are all
6981
+
collected together, they present a fantastic panorama of
6982
+
human attitudes.”7 The resources included in this chapter
6983
+
enable you to compare reports sent to Shiomi by dozens of
6984
+
wide-ranging figures, some of whom are not typically
6985
+
associated with Fluxus: John Baldessari, stanley brouwn,
6986
+
Carolyn Brown, Christo, Ian Hamilton Finlay, Allen Ginsberg,
6987
+
Daria Halprin, Richard Hamilton, Sylvester Houédard,
6988
+
Douglas Huebler, Ray Johnson, Vytautas Landsbergis,
6989
+
György Ligeti, Jonas Mekas, Brian O’Doherty, Robin Page,
6990
+
Betty Parsons, Carolee Schneemann, Paul Thek, Peter Van
6991
+
Riper, Tom Wesselmann, Robert Whitman, Jean-Pierre
6992
+
Wilhelm, La Monte Young, and Marian Zazeela, among many
6993
+
others.
6994
+
Through Spatial Poem, Shiomi acted as the
6995
+
conductor of a worldwide action-music composition,
6996
+
illuminating in intimate detail an international social network
6997
+
of likeminded artists allied in a search for sympathetic
6998
+
collaborators and audiences with whom to share their
6999
+
vanguard work. Although Spatial Poem is sometimes
7000
+
characterized as a form of mail art, Shiomi did not consider it
7001
+
so, since her focus was on the simultaneity of actions
7002
+
performed rather than her administration of the project.
7003
+
More notable, perhaps, is the way Spatial Poem adopts as its
7004
+
very method the Fluxus notion of intermedia, or rather (as
7005
+
the artist has more recently described it) “transmedia”—an
7006
+
artistic practice in which “the original concept is carried into
7007
+
subsequent works even though the form of expression is
7008
+
different each time.”8
7009
+
After completing the final piece, Spatial Poem No. 9,
7010
+
appropriately titled Disappearing Event (1975), Shiomi self-
7011
+
published an artist’s book chronicling the vast array of
7012
+
responses she had received over the years. The book’s cover
7013
+
7014
+
7015
+
220 Spatial Poem
7016
+
Fig. 10.9 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938). Cover of Complete
7017
+
Works: Spatial Poem (Osaka, Japan: self-published, 1976), artist’s book.
7018
+
Getty Research Institute, item 91-B36111. Used by permission of Mieko
7019
+
Shiomi.
7020
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/530/
7021
+
7022
+
7023
+
7024
+
7025
+
Harren 221
7026
+
Fig. 10.10 Mieko (Chieko) Shiomi (Japanese, b. 1938). Promotional
7027
+
postcard for Complete Works: Spatial Poem, ca. 1976, offset print. Getty
7028
+
Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 47, folder 3. Used by
7029
+
permission of Mieko Shiomi.
7030
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/518/
7031
+
7032
+
7033
+
7034
+
7035
+
222 Spatial Poem
7036
+
and a related promotional postcard feature the titles of each
7037
+
event arrayed alongside a graphically abstracted photograph
7038
+
of the Earth closely resembling the famous “Blue Marble”
7039
+
image taken by the crew of Apollo 17 in 1972,
7040
+
acknowledging that Spatial Poem had indeed unfolded
7041
+
alongside an expanding global ecological consciousness
7042
+
among artists and intellectuals of the period (figs. 10.9,
7043
+
10.10). Imagining the Fluxus network in parallel with our
7044
+
solar system, Shiomi has remarked, “I have been at the
7045
+
position of Pluto. But living in a remote place enabled me to
7046
+
see the outline of Fluxus rather clearly.”9 The experience of
7047
+
reading through Shiomi’s compilation of Spatial Poem scores
7048
+
recalls George Brecht’s conviction that an event score may
7049
+
be either performed or simply observed or imagined.
7050
+
Impressively, the works guaranteed both outcomes: first, in
7051
+
the actual performances conducted by members of Shiomi’s
7052
+
network, and second, in our mental visualization of each
7053
+
performance as we read the gathered reports.
7054
+
Concluding in 1975, Spatial Poem may be
7055
+
understood as an emblematic final bookend to more than
7056
+
two decades of collective experimentations with
7057
+
performance notations. For the artist, however, its audience
7058
+
was potentially much greater. “I would like to think,” Shiomi
7059
+
has written, that “the collective anonymous poem can be
7060
+
preserved as a monument for the people of the 30th
7061
+
century—if we survive that long.”10
7062
+
7063
+
Notes
7064
+
7065
+
1. Mieko Shiomi, “Mieko Shiomi,” Art and Artists 8, no. 7 (1973): 42.
7066
+
2. Mieko Shiomi, quoted in Kakinuma Toshie and Takeuchi Nao, “Oral
7067
+
History Interview with Shiomi Mieko,” 1 December 2014, trans. Reiko
7068
+
Tomii, Archival Research Center, Kyoto University of Arts, https://www
7069
+
.kcua.ac.jp/arc/ar/shiomi_eg_1/.
7070
+
3. Mieko Shiomi, quoted in Michelle Elligott, “Interview with Artist Mieko
7071
+
Shiomi: Chapter 3,” 27 October 2011, Post: Notes on Modern &
7072
+
Contemporary Art around the Globe, website of the Contemporary and
7073
+
Modern Art Perspectives (C-MAP) program at the Museum of Modern
7074
+
7075
+
7076
+
7077
+
7078
+
Harren 223
7079
+
Art, New York, https://post.at.moma.org/content_items/22-interview
7080
+
-with-shiomi-mieko.
7081
+
4. Mieko Shiomi, quoted in Sally Kawamura, “Appreciating the Incidental:
7082
+
Mieko Shiomi’s ‘Events,’” Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist
7083
+
Theory 19, no. 3 (November 2009): 313.
7084
+
5. Chieko [Mieko] Shiomi, “Onkyō no obuje no sokkyōteki korāju: Onkyō to
7085
+
no taiwa” (The Improvisational Collage of Sound Objects: A Dialog of
7086
+
Sound), Nijisseiki buyō 5 (1 September 1960): 17–23, cited in William
7087
+
Marotti, “Challenge to Music: The Music Group’s Sonic Politics,” in
7088
+
Tomorrow Is the Question: New Directions in Experimental Music
7089
+
Studies, ed. Benjamin Piekut (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
7090
+
2014), 126.
7091
+
6. Mieko Shiomi to George Maciunas, ca. 1965, Jean Brown Papers,
7092
+
1916–1995 (bulk 1958–1985), 890164 and 2016.M.14, box 31, folder
7093
+
30, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
7094
+
7. Shiomi, “Mieko Shiomi,” 44.
7095
+
8. Mieko Shiomi, “Intermedia/Transmedia,” transcript of a lecture given at
7096
+
the Museum of Contemporary Art, Tokyo, 29 April 2012, trans. Midori
7097
+
Yoshimoto, Post: Notes on Art in a Global Context, website of the C-MAP
7098
+
program (see note 3 above), https://post.moma.org/intermedia
7099
+
-transmedia/.
7100
+
9. Mieko Shiomi, quoted in Alison Knowles et al., “An Evening with Fluxus
7101
+
Women: A Roundtable Discussion,” Women & Performance: A Journal of
7102
+
Feminist Theory 19, no. 3 (November 2009): 370.
7103
+
10. Shiomi, “Mieko Shiomi,” 44.
7104
+
7105
+
7106
+
7107
+
7108
+
224 Spatial Poem
7109
+
11. Allan Kaprow: Routine
7110
+
(1973–75)
7111
+
7112
+
Emily Ruth Capper
7113
+
7114
+
7115
+
7116
+
7117
+
Between 1958 and 1959, around the same time George
7118
+
Brecht devised his first event scores (see chapter 6), Allan
7119
+
Kaprow developed the “happening.” Kaprow had started out
7120
+
as a painter and then, in the tradition of Cubism and Dada,
7121
+
began to affix everyday materials to his paintings. Inspired
7122
+
by a wide range of sources, from Jackson Pollock’s mural-
7123
+
size paintings to lowbrow funhouses, Kaprow’s work rapidly
7124
+
increased in scale from collages to three-dimensional
7125
+
assemblages to, finally, room-size installations he called
7126
+
“environments.”1 Kaprow constructed his environments out
7127
+
of a signature array of everyday objects (for instance, plastic
7128
+
drop cloths, holiday lights, tinfoil, mirrors). In his later
7129
+
happenings, he incorporated human participants and gave
7130
+
them various actions, tasks, and games to perform.
7131
+
While Kaprow staged several early happenings in art
7132
+
galleries, he soon decided that the physical, psychological,
7133
+
and social coordinates of the gallery impeded the sort of
7134
+
participation he desired from viewers. He thus began to work
7135
+
in a way we would now call site-specific, meaning that he
7136
+
created happenings for specific non-art locations and
7137
+
structures. Another major shift in the poetics of the
7138
+
happening occurred around 1965, when Kaprow decided to
7139
+
“eliminate the audience” (as he put it) by working exclusively
7140
+
with small groups of committed participants to realize a
7141
+
given happening over two or more days.2 Kaprow fostered
7142
+
such intimacy in order to differentiate the happening from
7143
+
both traditional theater and youth culture (light shows, rock
7144
+
concerts, promotional stunts) and their purportedly more
7145
+
passive forms of spectatorship. In part, he was responding
7146
+
7147
+
................
7148
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/11/ 225
7149
+
to the fact that, during the later 1960s, the word
7150
+
“happening” was becoming synonymous with spectacular
7151
+
events, whereas before 1965 it meant simply “occurrence.”
7152
+
For this reason, Kaprow largely abandoned the use of the
7153
+
word “happening” by the 1970s and turned instead to what
7154
+
he called “activities” for the rest of his career.3
7155
+
Kaprow developed a notation practice to support his
7156
+
work with happenings and activities. Like Brecht, he was
7157
+
profoundly influenced by John Cage’s experimental
7158
+
composition course at the New School for Social Research
7159
+
(fig. 11.1). By the time Kaprow started the course in late
7160
+
1957, he had already experimented with sound in his
7161
+
assemblages and environments, notably via noise-making
7162
+
toys, which he hid in the corners of the Hansa Gallery’s
7163
+
ceiling molding.4 Frustrated by the mechanical repetition of
7164
+
his sonic environment, Kaprow enrolled in Cage’s class with
7165
+
the intention of learning how to make audiotape collages.5
7166
+
Although Kaprow learned musique concrète techniques
7167
+
from Cage (fig. 11.2), he found Cage’s deeper philosophical
7168
+
lessons about indeterminacy even more productive. Cage
7169
+
taught that the experimental score and its performance are
7170
+
at once interdependent and incommensurate: where the
7171
+
score is abstract, the performance is concrete; where the
7172
+
score is fixed, every performance is different. Cage also
7173
+
demonstrated these ideas in a fun and participatory way in a
7174
+
classroom that Kaprow likened to “a playground.”6 Each
7175
+
week, Cage asked students to compose a short score in
7176
+
response to a prompt that often involved chance procedures
7177
+
and nontraditional instruments like radios, which he had
7178
+
used in some of his own compositions. The students would
7179
+
perform their scores for Cage during class and discuss the
7180
+
results, reflecting on what they had experienced.7
7181
+
Kaprow’s activities can be seen to revisit the
7182
+
unrehearsed performances and philosophical discussions
7183
+
that flourished in Cage’s classroom. Of his activities,
7184
+
Routine is a prime example. Commissioned by Oregon’s
7185
+
Portland Center for the Visual Arts (PCVA) in April 1973,
7186
+
7187
+
226 Routine
7188
+
Fig. 11.1 Students in John Cage’s experimental composition class, New
7189
+
School for Social Research, New York, NY, summer 1958. From Al Hansen,
7190
+
A Primer of Happenings & Time-Space Art (New York: Something Else
7191
+
Press, 1965), 100.
7192
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/557/
7193
+
7194
+
7195
+
7196
+
7197
+
Capper 227
7198
+
Fig. 11.2 Allan Kaprow (American, 1927–2006). Tape Score, 1957. Getty
7199
+
Research Institute, Allan Kaprow Papers, 980063, box 4, folder 7.
7200
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/579/#fig-579-h
7201
+
7202
+
7203
+
7204
+
7205
+
228 Routine
7206
+
Routine encompasses several interlocking elements. In the
7207
+
fall of that year, Kaprow composed the score, which he
7208
+
referred to as the “program.”8 During a three-day residency
7209
+
at the PCVA in December, he realized the program with
7210
+
twenty or so different pairs of participants. The realizations
7211
+
took place on a Saturday afternoon and were bookended by
7212
+
what he called a “briefing” on Friday evening and a “review”
7213
+
on Saturday evening. In the remaining available time on
7214
+
Friday and Sunday, Kaprow also produced a version of
7215
+
Routine in the form of a short instructional film. Finally, two
7216
+
years later, Kaprow published Routine as an “activity
7217
+
booklet” that included the program, photographs, and an
7218
+
accompanying essay.
7219
+
Over the course of Routine’s five parts, Kaprow uses
7220
+
ordinary objects to isolate and scramble visual and aural
7221
+
communication channels. In parts 1, 3, and 5, the two
7222
+
participants look at each other in mirrors; in parts 2, 4, and
7223
+
5, they speak over the phone. In each part, participants
7224
+
alternate and repeat routine gestures and phrases to the
7225
+
point of illegibility, inaudibility, or exhaustion and interact
7226
+
with each other in both intimate and socially awkward ways.
7227
+
Over the course of each part, communication becomes more
7228
+
and more difficult as the various tasks become further
7229
+
abstracted, inducing moments of self-conscious reflection.
7230
+
The program is composed of ordinary language that
7231
+
has been repurposed in highly formal ways. The blocks of
7232
+
text are centered, symmetrical, and generously framed by
7233
+
blank space. Most importantly, Kaprow writes in the
7234
+
continuous present tense rather than the imperative. This is
7235
+
unusual for instructions and, to some extent, lends the
7236
+
program a self-contained, poetic quality. At the same time,
7237
+
however, many of the notations are indeterminate and thus
7238
+
require considerable interpretive work to be realized, as, for
7239
+
example, in the beginning of part 4 (fig. 11.3). Here, the
7240
+
instruction reads “saying something”—but saying what,
7241
+
exactly? This is for the performer to decide. Kaprow’s
7242
+
intense focus on the form of the phone call, seemingly at the
7243
+
7244
+
Capper 229
7245
+
expense of its content or message, invites comparison to
7246
+
Brecht’s earlier Three Telephone Events (1961), an event
7247
+
score that Kaprow particularly liked (fig. 11.4).
7248
+
Kaprow eventually concluded that his experimental
7249
+
scores should not circulate independently of a structured
7250
+
pedagogical context, a conceit distinguishing his practice
7251
+
from that of Brecht and other Fluxus artists.9 It may also
7252
+
reflect his long career as a university professor.10 Kaprow
7253
+
argued, “An unfamiliar genre like this one does not speak for
7254
+
itself. Explaining, reading, thinking, doing, feeling,
7255
+
reviewing, and thinking again are commingled.”11 To this
7256
+
end, he introduced Routine with a “briefing” in the form of a
7257
+
short lecture that broke down the formal structure of the
7258
+
activity and sketched out various ways to interpret it. Here,
7259
+
Kaprow translated philosophical questions into vernacular
7260
+
terms and made the activity sound both intellectually
7261
+
worthwhile and fun. It was with a certain seriousness of
7262
+
purpose, then, that the participants in Routine spread out
7263
+
across Portland to realize the program in their own ways (fig.
7264
+
11.5). After the realizations had occurred, Kaprow
7265
+
reconvened the participants at the PCVA for a “review”—a
7266
+
seminar-style discussion during which participants analyzed
7267
+
their experiences. He would ask: Did your experience of
7268
+
Routine conform to your expectations? How did your
7269
+
experience differ from your partner’s? Questions such as
7270
+
these enabled Kaprow to gather crucial feedback and to
7271
+
measure, however informally, the program’s ability to inspire
7272
+
diverse realizations while maintaining a unified
7273
+
purposiveness.
7274
+
Kaprow’s commitment to framing his activities
7275
+
pedagogically posed certain challenges, particularly with
7276
+
regard to publication. The typed program alone did not, in
7277
+
Kaprow’s view, offer enough guidance, so he developed two
7278
+
novel publication formats: the activity booklet and what we
7279
+
might call the “activity film.” The activity booklets invariably
7280
+
open with a short essay that condenses the functions of
7281
+
Kaprow’s “briefing” and “review.” In the essay, Kaprow
7282
+
7283
+
230 Routine
7284
+
Fig. 11.3 Allan Kaprow (American, 1927–2006). Detail of part 4 of the
7285
+
printed program for Routine, 1973. Getty Research Institute, Allan Kaprow
7286
+
Papers, 980063, box 24, folder 9.
7287
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/561/
7288
+
7289
+
7290
+
7291
+
7292
+
Capper 231
7293
+
Fig. 11.4 George Brecht (American, 1926–2008). Three Telephone
7294
+
Events, spring 1961. From Water Yam (1963), wooden box with label,
7295
+
containing ninety-one scores printed on various sizes and colors of card
7296
+
stock. Getty Research Institute, Jean Brown Papers, 890164, box 127. ©
7297
+
2022 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn.
7298
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/562/
7299
+
7300
+
7301
+
7302
+
7303
+
232 Routine
7304
+
Fig. 11.5 Allan Kaprow (American, 1927–2006). Detail of page 2 of the
7305
+
program for Routine, with notes handwritten by a participant during
7306
+
Kaprow’s residency at the Portland Center for the Visual Arts, Portland, OR,
7307
+
December 1973. Getty Research Institute, Allan Kaprow Papers, 980063,
7308
+
box 24, folder 9.
7309
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/563/
7310
+
7311
+
7312
+
7313
+
7314
+
Capper 233
7315
+
clarifies the key concepts that animate the program and
7316
+
summarizes the range of realizations that have already
7317
+
occurred. But even this was not enough to reel in the distant
7318
+
reader. In order to provoke a physical response, Kaprow
7319
+
enlists the mimetic magic of photographic media. As he
7320
+
explains at the start of the Routine activity booklet:
7321
+
7322
+
The photos here do not document ROUTINE. They
7323
+
fictionalize it. They were made and assembled to
7324
+
illustrate a framework of moves upon which an
7325
+
action or set of actions could be based. They
7326
+
function somewhere between the artifice of a
7327
+
Hollywood movie and an instruction manual.12
7328
+
7329
+
Where most artists in Kaprow’s milieu used
7330
+
photography to document performances, Kaprow used the
7331
+
medium to inspire new ones. To this end, he developed a
7332
+
diagrammatic approach that began by sketching out the
7333
+
basic photographic compositions in advance. More than a
7334
+
mere guide, these sketches yielded photographs that retain a
7335
+
strong graphic quality: individual faces are deliberately
7336
+
obscured in favor of clear postures and spatial relationships.
7337
+
For example, on the first page of the activity booklet, the
7338
+
man’s shadow is a stick figure come to life or, rather, a living
7339
+
person made into a stick figure (figs. 11.6, 11.7). Sometimes
7340
+
Kaprow took the photographs for his activity booklets, but
7341
+
more often he directed an art student to do it; in this case it
7342
+
was Alvin Comiter, a student at the California Institute of the
7343
+
Arts. Nevertheless, Kaprow dictated the style as well as the
7344
+
mise-en-scène, in the manner of a film director guiding a
7345
+
cinematographer.
7346
+
The PCVA gave Kaprow a modest budget for
7347
+
documentation. But instead of filming the Saturday
7348
+
realizations as one might expect, the artist kept those
7349
+
private. He had determined that the presence of a camera
7350
+
altered the experience of performance in profound ways that
7351
+
had to be carefully accounted for.13 He used the funds to
7352
+
produce an instructional film, complete with copious
7353
+
7354
+
234 Routine
7355
+
Fig. 11.6 Allan Kaprow (American, 1927–2006). Drawing on the
7356
+
handwritten draft of the program for Routine, 1973. Getty Research
7357
+
Institute, Allan Kaprow Papers, 980063, box 24, folder 9.
7358
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/564/
7359
+
7360
+
7361
+
7362
+
7363
+
Capper 235
7364
+
Fig. 11.7 Allan Kaprow (American, 1927–2006). Detail of page 3 of the
7365
+
activity booklet for Routine, 1975. Getty Research Institute, Allan Kaprow
7366
+
Papers, 980063, box 24, folder 9. Image © Alvin Comiter.
7367
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/565/
7368
+
7369
+
7370
+
7371
+
7372
+
236 Routine
7373
+
voiceovers, intertitles, and semi-rehearsed performances
7374
+
(fig. 11.8). Like the sort of industrial film it mimics
7375
+
rhetorically, the activity film Routine was made cheaply and
7376
+
quickly, and to carry out his vision Kaprow engaged the
7377
+
technical expertise of young people, including the aspiring
7378
+
documentary filmmaker Michael Sullivan (fig. 11.9).14
7379
+
The activity film for Routine follows the pattern of
7380
+
the genre of the activity booklet in many ways. The
7381
+
compositions and gestures, for instance, tend to look
7382
+
somewhat abstract, thanks in part to the readymade
7383
+
geometries of the locations themselves, like the white lines
7384
+
of a parking lot (fig. 11.10). Further, the shot-reverse-shot
7385
+
editing is easy to follow, in part because it is a familiar
7386
+
element of classic Hollywood film grammar. In this context,
7387
+
Kaprow’s numerous activities for couples that entail an
7388
+
exaggerated series of miscommunications and awkward
7389
+
entanglements curiously evoke the plot of a romantic
7390
+
comedy, albeit a drastically simplified one.
7391
+
Kaprow’s films and videos of the 1970s were
7392
+
experiments (figs. 11.11, 11.12, 11.13, and 11.14). He was
7393
+
clear about their intended function: to serve as animated
7394
+
versions of indeterminate scores rather than as
7395
+
documentations of performances. Indeed, he stated this
7396
+
intention directly through his opening voiceovers. But
7397
+
Kaprow was not entirely sure that any film could function as
7398
+
an indeterminate score, since participants might be tempted
7399
+
to simply mimic what they saw on screen, thus foreclosing
7400
+
the creative aspect of realization in the Cagean tradition.
7401
+
Thus, in characteristic fashion, Kaprow devised a further
7402
+
experiment in 1976. He directed a group of friends, along
7403
+
with his then wife, Vaughan Rachel, to try out one of his
7404
+
instructional videotapes as an experimental score for an
7405
+
activity. After the group performed the activity, Kaprow
7406
+
convened a review session at which he asked them about
7407
+
their experiences using the instructional videotape. Kaprow
7408
+
recorded this review session on audiotape, and as it
7409
+
unspools we hear his friends criticize his videotape score,
7410
+
7411
+
Capper 237
7412
+
Fig. 11.8 Allan Kaprow filming performers Sue Johnson (left) and David
7413
+
Hauck for the film version of Routine, 1973. Getty Research Institute, Allan
7414
+
Kaprow Papers, 980063, box 24, folder 9.
7415
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/566/
7416
+
7417
+
7418
+
7419
+
7420
+
238 Routine
7421
+
Fig. 11.9 Michael Sullivan (front, center) and the crew for the activity film
7422
+
for Routine (1973), photographed at the Portland Center for the Visual Arts,
7423
+
1973. Getty Research Institute, Allan Kaprow Papers, 980063, box 24,
7424
+
folder 9.
7425
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/567/
7426
+
7427
+
7428
+
7429
+
7430
+
Capper 239
7431
+
Fig. 11.10 Allan Kaprow (American, 1927–2006). Film still from Routine,
7432
+
1973, 1 film reel: 16mm, SD, b&w. Getty Research Institute, Allan Kaprow
7433
+
Papers, 980063, box 99, F46.
7434
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/object-index/568/
7435
+
7436
+
7437
+
7438
+
7439
+
240 Routine
7440
+
Fig. 11.11 Allan Kaprow (American, Fig. 11.12 Allan Kaprow (American,
7441
+
1927–2006). Routine, 1973, 1 film 1927–2006). Warm-ups, 1975, 1
7442
+
reel: 16mm, SD, b&w. Getty film reel: 16mm, SD, color. Getty
7443
+
Research Institute, Allan Kaprow Research Institute, Allan Kaprow
7444
+
Papers, 980063, box 99, F46. Papers, 980063, box 99, F47.
7445
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/ getty.edu/publications/scores/
7446
+
object-index/574/ object-index/570/
7447
+
7448
+
7449
+
7450
+
7451
+
Fig. 11.13 Allan Kaprow (American, Fig. 11.14 Allan Kaprow (American,
7452
+
1927–2006). Comfort Zones, 1975, 1927–2006). 7 Kinds of Sympathy,
7453
+
1 film reel: 16mm, SD, b&w. 1976, U-matic videocassette, SD,
7454
+
Produced by Galería Vandrés, SA., color, ¾-inch tape. Produced by
7455
+
Madrid, Spain. Photographed and Peter Kirby and Anna Canepa Video
7456
+
edited by David Seaton, with Distribution, with performers Julie
7457
+
performers Esther Llordén and Mario Steiny and Bryan Jones. Getty
7458
+
Costas. Getty Research Institute, Research Institute, Allan Kaprow
7459
+
Allan Kaprow Papers, 980063, box Papers, 980063, box 91, V37.
7460
+
99, F48. getty.edu/publications/scores/
7461
+
getty.edu/publications/scores/ object-index/576/
7462
+
object-index/575/
7463
+
7464
+
7465
+
7466
+
7467
+
Capper 241
7468
+
describing it as idealized, didactic, or otherwise misleading.
7469
+
While many artists might find this reaction deflating, Kaprow
7470
+
sounds energized. For him, the score form was at least in
7471
+
part a tool for generating meaningful debate and self-
7472
+
critique. The process of realization would ideally generate
7473
+
further new forms, which is precisely what we hear later on
7474
+
the audiotaped review when one of his friends proposes that
7475
+
Kaprow make an almost absurdly recursive instructional
7476
+
videotape explaining how to use his instructional
7477
+
videotapes. Such glimmers of self-reflection were
7478
+
perennially Kaprow’s aim as he brought both participants
7479
+
and pedagogical techniques into the center of his artworks.
7480
+
7481
+
Notes
7482
+
7483
+
1. Allan Kaprow, “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock” (1958), in Essays on the
7484
+
Blurring of Art and Life, ed. Jeff Kelley (Berkeley: University of California
7485
+
Press, 2003), 1–9; and Allan Kaprow, Assemblages, Environments, and
7486
+
Happenings (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1966), 157–65.
7487
+
2. Allan Kaprow, “Nontheatrical Performance” (1976), in Essays on the
7488
+
Blurring of Art and Life, 173.
7489
+
3. Kaprow explains: “My choice of the word ‘Happening’ was intended to
7490
+
neutralize art and to suggest the possibility of a consciousness and mode
7491
+
of action unencumbered by associations with either any art or other
7492
+
profession. Once I saw that it acquired stereotypical meanings which
7493
+
only got in the way of that consciousness, I adopted Michael Kirby’s word
7494
+
‘Activity’ as an alternative.” Allan Kaprow, “Easy Activity,” in Art Studies
7495
+
for an Editor: 25 Essays in Memory of Milton S. Fox (New York: Harry N.
7496
+
Abrams, 1975), 177. Michael Kirby was a drama professor at New York
7497
+
University and editor of Happenings: An Illustrated Anthology (New
7498
+
York: E. P. Dutton, 1965).
7499
+
4. Allan Kaprow, interview by Joan Marter and Joseph Jacobs, in Off
7500
+
Limits: Rutgers University and the Avant-Garde, 1957–63, ed. Joan
7501
+
Marter (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999), 132.
7502
+
5. Kaprow recalled, “I went to John [Cage] to find out how I could use tapes,
7503
+
because I figured tapes could contain a lot more sound on them, that I
7504
+
could do much more with them because I heard a lot of his work, and
7505
+
everybody was doing pre-electronic music in those days, calling it
7506
+
musique concrète, which was in the mid-fifties.” Allan Kaprow, oral
7507
+
history interview by Moira Roth, 5 and 18 February 1981, Archives of
7508
+
American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 22.
7509
+
7510
+
7511
+
7512
+
242 Routine
7513
+
6. Allan Kaprow, in conversation with Gordon Mumma, James Tenney,
7514
+
Christian Wolff, Alvin Curran, and Maryanne Amacher, in “Cage’s
7515
+
Influence: A Panel Discussion,” in Writings through John Cage’s Music,
7516
+
Poetry, and Art, ed. David W. Bernstein and Christopher Hatch (Chicago:
7517
+
University of Chicago Press, 2001), 171.
7518
+
7. Cage recalled about his New School course: “One thing I insisted upon in
7519
+
the class, I said, ‘Don’t bring any work to the class that you can’t do. If
7520
+
you can’t do it here, don’t bring it here.’” John Cage, oral history
7521
+
interview, 2 May 1974, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian
7522
+
Institution, Washington, D.C., https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/
7523
+
interviews/oral-history-interview-john-cage-12442. For the broad
7524
+
outlines of Cage’s class, see Joseph Jacobs, “Crashing New York à la
7525
+
John Cage,” in Marter, Off Limits, 65–99; and Bruce Altshuler, “The
7526
+
Cage Class,” in FluxAttitudes, ed. Cornelia Lauf and Susan Hapgood
7527
+
(Buffalo, NY: Hallwalls Contemporary Arts Center, 1991), 17–23.
7528
+
8. Kaprow called his scores “programs” after 1968 in order to foster
7529
+
associations with computing and modern communications systems,
7530
+
rather than with fine art. See Allan Kaprow, interview by Richard
7531
+
Schechner, The Drama Review 12, no. 3 (1968): 153; and Allan Kaprow,
7532
+
“Education of the Un-Artist, Part I” (1971), in Essays on the Blurring of
7533
+
Art and Life, 106.
7534
+
9. Kaprow collaborated with many Fluxus artists over the years, but he did
7535
+
not identify as a Fluxus artist himself. According to his account, this was
7536
+
because he could not get along with George Maciunas. Allan Kaprow,
7537
+
“Maestro Maciunas” (1996), in Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life,
7538
+
243–46.
7539
+
10. Kaprow earned a master’s degree in art history from Columbia University
7540
+
in 1952 and held academic posts at the following institutions: Rutgers
7541
+
University, 1952–61; Stony Brook University, 1961–68; the California
7542
+
Institute of the Arts, 1969–74; and University of California at San Diego,
7543
+
1974–92.
7544
+
11. Kaprow, “Nontheatrical Performance,” 167.
7545
+
12. Allan Kaprow, Routine activity booklet, 1975, Allan Kaprow Papers,
7546
+
980063, box 24, folder 9, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.
7547
+
13. On Kaprow’s complex uses of photography in happenings, see Judith F.
7548
+
Rodenbeck, “Foil,” in Radical Prototypes: Allan Kaprow and the Invention
7549
+
of Happenings (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), 223–40. On this
7550
+
topic in relation to Routine, see Judith F. Rodenbeck, “Various Small
7551
+
Ethnofictions of Coastal California,” in The Uses of Photography: Art,
7552
+
Politics, and the Reinvention of a Medium, ed. Jill Dawsey (San Diego:
7553
+
Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, 2016), 103–6.
7554
+
14. Brian Marquard, “Michael Sullivan; at 67, producer for ‘Frontline,’”
7555
+
Boston Globe, 28 June 2013, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/
7556
+
7557
+
7558
+
Capper 243
7559
+
2013/06/27/michael-sullivan-marblehead-frontline-producer-projects
7560
+
-included-the-mormons-and-kind-hearted-woman/
7561
+
gsv1MiSnWgjxyJYJ0vkE8H/story.html.
7562
+
7563
+
7564
+
7565
+
7566
+
244 Routine
7567
+
Contributors
7568
+
7569
+
7570
+
7571
+
7572
+
Julia Bryan-Wilson is professor of art history and gender
7573
+
studies at Columbia University. Her most recent book
7574
+
is Louise Nevelson’s Sculpture: Drag, Color, Join, Face (Yale
7575
+
University Press, 2023).
7576
+
7577
+
Emily Ruth Capper is assistant professor in the Department
7578
+
of Art History at the University of Minnesota. Her first book,
7579
+
Happening Pedagogy: Allan Kaprow’s Experiments in
7580
+
Instruction, 1948–1968, is forthcoming from the University
7581
+
of Chicago Press.
7582
+
7583
+
Michael Gallope is professor of cultural studies and
7584
+
comparative literature at the University of Minnesota. His
7585
+
most recent book is The Musician as Philosopher: New
7586
+
York’s Vernacular Avant-Garde, 1958–1978 (University of
7587
+
Chicago Press, 2024).
7588
+
7589
+
Natilee Harren is associate professor of modern and
7590
+
contemporary art history and theory at the University of
7591
+
Houston School of Art and the author of Fluxus Forms:
7592
+
Scores, Multiples, and the Eternal Network (University of
7593
+
Chicago Press, 2020).
7594
+
7595
+
John Hicks is a lecturer in the Department of Cultural Studies
7596
+
and Comparative Literature at the University of Minnesota.
7597
+
7598
+
George E. Lewis is the Edwin H. Case Professor of American
7599
+
Music at Columbia University. He is the author of A Power
7600
+
Stronger Than Itself: The AACM and American Experimental
7601
+
Music (University of Chicago Press, 2008).
7602
+
7603
+
7604
+
7605
+
245
7606
+
Nancy Perloff is curator of modern and contemporary
7607
+
collections at the Getty Research Institute. She is the author
7608
+
of Concrete Poetry: A 21st-Century Anthology (Reaktion,
7609
+
2023).
7610
+
7611
+
Benjamin Piekut is professor and chair of the Department of
7612
+
Music at Cornell University.
7613
+
7614
+
7615
+
7616
+
7617
+
246 Contributors
7618
+
Acknowledgments
7619
+
7620
+
7621
+
7622
+
7623
+
A project of this scope and ambition could not have come
7624
+
to fruition without the dedication and brilliance of many
7625
+
people whose outstanding collaborative efforts have been
7626
+
crucial at every stage. The editors would like to
7627
+
acknowledge the early contributions of Getty Research
7628
+
Institute Publications staff Michele Ciaccio, Janelle
7629
+
Gatchalian, and especially Gail Feigenbaum, who first
7630
+
hatched the idea of featuring experimental scores in a
7631
+
multimedia digital format. We remain in awe of the
7632
+
herculean imaging efforts of Ted Walbye, Peter Dueker,
7633
+
Taylor Branham, Sophie Chen-Iveson, Michael Smith,
7634
+
Johana Herrera, Steve DeFurio, and many others over the
7635
+
years. Our thanks also to Victoria Barry, Audrey Warne,
7636
+
Dina Murokh, Chloe Millhauser, and Kate Justement for
7637
+
the hours they spent tracking down and cataloging the
7638
+
project’s rich trove of objects in preparation for imaging.
7639
+
Likewise, Karen Ehrmann and Pauline Lopez acquired
7640
+
images and permissions with admirable professionalism
7641
+
and grace. We thank manuscript editor Lisa Marietta for
7642
+
her indefatigable attention to detail, Molly McGeehan for
7643
+
her important role in the project’s production, and digital
7644
+
assistants Jenny Park and Alex Hallenbeck for their
7645
+
decisive contributions. The project was supported by
7646
+
additional research assistance from Kathryn Huether, Zach
7647
+
Rottman, and Anna Smith, along with expert guidance
7648
+
and aid from Sarah Cooper, Megan Metcalf, Marcia Reed,
7649
+
Nancy Perloff, Emily Ruth Capper, Tashi Wada, Judith
7650
+
Rodenbeck, and Peggy Phelan. Following Eric Gardner’s
7651
+
early prototyping and design work, which helped set us
7652
+
on the right path, project designers Andrew LeClair and
7653
+
7654
+
247
7655
+
E Roon Kang of 908A crafted a smart and rigorous design
7656
+
that packages these complex intermedial texts and
7657
+
objects in a remarkably elegant way, for which we are
7658
+
grateful.
7659
+
We are appreciative of additional funding provided
7660
+
by the National Endowment for the Humanities–Mellon
7661
+
Fellowship in Digital Publication, the National Endowment
7662
+
for the Humanities Summer Stipend, the McKnight
7663
+
Foundation, the College of Liberal Arts at the University
7664
+
of Minnesota, and the Kathrine G. McGovern College of
7665
+
the Arts and Division of Research at the University of
7666
+
Houston.
7667
+
Two team members in particular deserve extended
7668
+
praise. We are deeply thankful for the efforts of project
7669
+
editor Adriana Romero, whose keen eye on the project in
7670
+
its final stages have enabled the content to shine. Our
7671
+
appreciation and admiration for digital publications
7672
+
manager Greg Albers, who has guided and championed
7673
+
this project from beginning to end, is beyond measure.
7674
+
Greg brought an extraordinary combination of vision,
7675
+
optimism, good nature, savvy, intelligence, and
7676
+
pragmatism to this project, which established the
7677
+
foundation on which all other collaborations became
7678
+
possible. Lastly, we express our profound gratitude to the
7679
+
artists and contributors for generously sharing their
7680
+
archives and expertise, and for the patience and faith that
7681
+
they and our families invested in this project over its
7682
+
extended development.
7683
+
7684
+
7685
+
7686
+
7687
+
248 Acknowledgments
7688
+
+28
-11
system/public/papers.aesthetic.computer/platter.html
+28
-11
system/public/papers.aesthetic.computer/platter.html
···
276
276
<h1>Research Platter</h1>
277
277
<div class="subtitle">Full knowledge base for Aesthetic Computer papers and research.</div>
278
278
<div class="stats">
279
-
<span>359</span> pieces · <span>76</span> lib modules · <span>94</span> functions · <span>159</span> plans · <span>100</span> reports · <span>8</span> studies · <span>30+</span> readings · <span>26</span> papers
279
+
<span>362</span> pieces · <span>76</span> lib modules · <span>95</span> functions · <span>162</span> plans · <span>108</span> reports · <span>8</span> studies · <span>30+</span> readings · <span>27</span> papers
280
280
</div>
281
281
</div>
282
282
···
293
293
<div class="section-header" data-color="pink" onclick="toggleSection(this)">
294
294
<span class="toggle">▼</span>
295
295
<h2>Papers</h2>
296
-
<span class="count">26 publications</span>
296
+
<span class="count">27 publications</span>
297
297
</div>
298
298
<div class="section-items">
299
299
<a class="item" href="/aesthetic-computer-26-arxiv.pdf">Aesthetic Computer '26 — A Mobile-First Runtime for Creative Computing (arXiv, 5pp)</a>
···
460
460
<div class="section-header collapsed" data-color="gold" onclick="toggleSection(this)">
461
461
<span class="toggle">▼</span>
462
462
<h2>Pieces</h2>
463
-
<span class="count">341 .mjs + 18 .lisp</span>
463
+
<span class="count">344 .mjs + 18 .lisp</span>
464
464
</div>
465
465
<div class="section-items hidden">
466
466
<div class="item-group">
···
508
508
<span class="item"><span class="file">+ 13 more</span> addition, subtraction, tests, timing, profiles...</span>
509
509
</div>
510
510
<div class="item-group">
511
-
<div class="item-group-label">Full listing: 341 .mjs + 18 .lisp pieces</div>
511
+
<div class="item-group-label">Full listing: 344 .mjs + 18 .lisp pieces</div>
512
512
<a class="item" href="https://github.com/whistlegraph/aesthetic-computer/tree/main/system/public/aesthetic.computer/disks">Browse all pieces on GitHub</a>
513
513
</div>
514
514
</div>
···
519
519
<div class="section-header collapsed" data-color="green" onclick="toggleSection(this)">
520
520
<span class="toggle">▼</span>
521
521
<h2>Servers & Services</h2>
522
-
<span class="count">94 functions · 5 services · 7 session modules</span>
522
+
<span class="count">95 functions · 5 services · 8 session modules</span>
523
523
</div>
524
524
<div class="section-items hidden">
525
525
<div class="item-group">
526
-
<div class="item-group-label">Netlify Functions (94 serverless endpoints)</div>
526
+
<div class="item-group-label">Netlify Functions (95 serverless endpoints)</div>
527
527
<a class="item" href="https://github.com/whistlegraph/aesthetic-computer/tree/main/system/netlify/functions"><span class="file">system/netlify/functions/</span> Auth, content, keeps, chat, billing, telemetry, KidLisp storage</a>
528
528
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/api/api-docs"><span class="file">api/api-docs</span> LLM-friendly API documentation (live)</a>
529
529
</div>
···
588
588
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/assets/papers/readings/text/Ingold-2009-Textility-of-making.txt">Tim Ingold — "The Textility of Making" (2009) <span class="file">txt</span></a>
589
589
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/assets/papers/readings/text/lines-a-brief-history.txt">Tim Ingold — <em>Lines: A Brief History</em> (2007) <span class="file">txt</span></a>
590
590
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/assets/papers/readings/text/Marking_Scoring_Storing_and_Speculating.txt">David Joselit — "Marking, Scoring, Storing, and Speculating" (2016) <span class="file">txt</span></a>
591
+
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/assets/papers/readings/text/Gallope-Harren-Hicks-The-Scores-Project-2025.txt">Michael Gallope, Natilee Harren, John Hicks (eds.) — <em>The Scores Project</em> (Getty Research Institute, 2025, text CC BY-NC 4.0; images excluded) <span class="file">txt · 7687 lines</span></a>
591
592
</div>
592
593
<div class="item-group">
593
594
<div class="item-group-label">Computing & Language</div>
···
696
697
<div class="section-header collapsed" data-color="cyan" onclick="toggleSection(this)">
697
698
<span class="toggle">▼</span>
698
699
<h2>Reports</h2>
699
-
<span class="count">100 documents</span>
700
+
<span class="count">108 documents</span>
700
701
</div>
701
702
<div class="section-items hidden" id="reports-list"></div>
702
703
</div>
···
706
707
<div class="section-header collapsed" data-color="gold" onclick="toggleSection(this)">
707
708
<span class="toggle">▼</span>
708
709
<h2>Plans</h2>
709
-
<span class="count">159 documents</span>
710
+
<span class="count">162 documents</span>
710
711
</div>
711
712
<div class="section-items hidden" id="plans-list"></div>
712
713
</div>
···
734
735
<a class="item" href="https://github.com/whistlegraph/aesthetic-computer/tree/main/reference/strudel">reference/strudel/ — full Strudel source + ICLC paper</a>
735
736
</div>
736
737
<div class="item-group">
738
+
<div class="item-group-label">Experimental Scores / Notation</div>
739
+
<a class="item" href="https://github.com/thegetty/scores">thegetty/scores — Quire source for <em>The Scores Project</em>; `main` is published edition, `revisions` tracks proposed corrections</a>
740
+
<a class="item" href="https://www.getty.edu/publications/scores/">Getty digital edition — object pages, commentaries, and 2,000+ archival media items</a>
741
+
</div>
742
+
<div class="item-group">
737
743
<div class="item-group-label">API & Language Reference</div>
738
744
<a class="item" href="https://github.com/whistlegraph/aesthetic-computer/blob/main/reference/api/javascript-api.md">reference/api/javascript-api.md — AC JavaScript API reference</a>
739
745
<a class="item" href="https://github.com/whistlegraph/aesthetic-computer/blob/main/reference/kidlisp/language-reference.md">reference/kidlisp/language-reference.md — KidLisp language reference</a>
···
758
764
<div class="section-header collapsed" data-color="cyan" onclick="toggleSection(this)">
759
765
<span class="toggle">▼</span>
760
766
<h2>APIs & Data Sources</h2>
761
-
<span class="count">94 endpoints · 32+ collections</span>
767
+
<span class="count">95 endpoints · 32+ collections</span>
762
768
</div>
763
769
<div class="section-items hidden">
764
770
<div class="item-group">
···
766
772
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/api/api-docs">api/api-docs — LLM-friendly API documentation</a>
767
773
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/api/version">api/version — platform version</a>
768
774
<a class="item" href="https://aesthetic.computer/api/metrics">api/metrics — platform metrics</a>
769
-
<span class="item"><span class="file">94 total</span> Netlify serverless functions (auth, content, keeps, chat, billing, telemetry)</span>
775
+
<span class="item"><span class="file">95 total</span> Netlify serverless functions (auth, content, keeps, chat, billing, telemetry)</span>
770
776
</div>
771
777
<div class="item-group">
772
778
<div class="item-group-label">MongoDB Collections (key)</div>
···
793
799
</div>
794
800
<div class="item-group">
795
801
<div class="item-group-label">Platform Stats (SCORE.md)</div>
796
-
<span class="item">359 built-in pieces · 2,810 handles · 265 user pieces</span>
802
+
<span class="item">362 built-in pieces · 2,810 handles · 265 user pieces</span>
797
803
<span class="item">4,425 paintings · 16,523 KidLisp programs · 18,048 chat messages</span>
798
804
</div>
799
805
</div>
···
1031
1037
["ac-native-boot-speed-optimization.md","Ac Native Boot Speed Optimization"],
1032
1038
["2026-03-23-at-protocol-audit.md","At Protocol Audit"],
1033
1039
["2026-03-20-hda-capture-eio-investigation.md","Hda Capture Eio Investigation"],
1040
+
["instagram-api-migration-2026-03-29.md","Instagram Api Migration 2026 03 29"],
1041
+
["2026-04-02-getty-scores-project.md","Getty Scores Project"],
1042
+
["2026-03-30-scream-tts-exploration.md","Scream Tts Exploration"],
1043
+
["2026-03-30-crypto-portfolio-market-report.md","Crypto Portfolio Market Report"],
1044
+
["2026-03-29-intel-mac-usb-boot-debug.md","Intel Mac Usb Boot Debug"],
1045
+
["2026-03-28-panasonic-hc-x2000-firmware-update-checklist.md","Panasonic Hc X2000 Firmware Update Checklist"],
1046
+
["2026-03-28-panasonic-hc-x2000-ac-integration.md","Panasonic Hc X2000 Ac Integration"],
1047
+
["2026-03-28-ac-logo-history.md","Ac Logo History"],
1034
1048
];
1035
1049
1036
1050
const plans = [
···
1193
1207
["rename-keeps-to-keep.md","Rename Keeps To Keep"],
1194
1208
["docker-ota-build-pipeline.md","Docker Ota Build Pipeline"],
1195
1209
["blank-checkout.md","Blank Checkout"],
1210
+
["paper-sampling-in-ac.md","Paper Sampling In Ac"],
1211
+
["notepat-udp-midi-relay.md","Notepat Udp Midi Relay"],
1212
+
["cross-platform-samples.md","Cross Platform Samples"],
1196
1213
];
1197
1214
1198
1215
const studies = [