The thing that needs to be evident is your own listening.
It is your appreciation of the soundscape that makes it musical.
To listen is to dedicate your entire attention to sounds as they live and die.
Real sound is in the present moment: not recordings, not copies.
That is what I garnered from the video.
One additional thing that stands out to me and stands apart from this message is:
"We are the composers of this huge miraculous composition that's going on around us,
and we can improve it or we can destroy it.
We can add more noises, or we can add more beautiful sounds;
that's all up to us."
I find the difference between "noise" and "beautiful sounds" subjective, because it is. Beauty is perception; an opinion.
[Noise can be very musical-- in which case, is it still noise? I should say:]
Any sound can be musical.
Music is perception and intention; just as much the intention of the listener as the intention of the composer.
Thus, our choice to contribute sound or noise--pleasant or unpleasant--may be a choice between sincerity and insincerity.
One can contribute to the composition with sounds that are meaningful and true, and hope that they are beautiful;
or, one can add to the cacophony by sharing sounds born of poor, insincere intent and malevolence.
This is just one way I can imagine looking at it. It is very convoluted to define insincerity in art.
The Ono pieces are art.
Why?
Firstly, whether the Ono pieces are art is up to individual discernment.
This logic follows the earlier discussed example of music.
Music is merely art in the medium of sound; sound perceived to be art.
The existence of art, in any medium, is subjective.
Why are the Ono pieces art to me?
Initially, I am not sure. To myself, I recently defined art as a sensory experience.
Are these works sensory experiences? They are sensory experiences in the way poetic writing is sensory experience.
Writing is a collection of words, and the combinations can be colourful and dense and painful.
Writing can have form, contrast, and balance. [elements and principles of visual design]
Writing can invoke imagery.
If I beleive writing can be art, I can beleive these Ono pieces (made of words on a page) are art.
Thus, I conclude, art is not only a literal, physical sensory experience, but an abstract, mental one as well.
I beleive these Ono pieces satisfy that requirement.
To me, art is whatever I experience as art.
However, I tend to define unintentional/arbitrary experiences as inspiration, and intentional creations as art.
Inspiration: the experience of art exists only in the perceiver.
Art: the experience of art exists in both the composer and the perceiver.
I understand these pieces by Ono to be art.
is it art?
i. is it a sensory experience?
ii. is there a composer?
Once again, this becomes very convoluted.
What is a composer? The source of the experience?
Does the composer have to intend to create art for art to be created?
Does the composer have to intend to create art to be a composer?
Following that, if there needs to be a composer, does there need to be a perceiver?
[If art without a composer is inspiration:]
What is a composition without a perceiver?
What are the requirements of a perceiver?
If an observer does not experience the composer's work as art, does that negate the art?
ahhhhh word count
Short answer: No.
Yes, there does need to be sound; however, there is something to be said for implied sound, imagined sound, experienced sound.
Things that are not sound can have musical qualities. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily music on its own-- unless it seeks to be.