Minimal art cannot simply rely on an immediate aesthetic for its "story". Whether it be Malevich - whose black paintings have quite complex - "The brushwork is juicy and brusque: filling in the shapes, fussing with the edges. But the forms are weightless, more like thoughts than like images. You donxe2x80x99t look at the picture so much as launch yourself into its trackless empyrean. Beyond its obvious design flair, the work looks easy because it is. Malevich is monumental not for what he put into pictorial space but for what he took out: bodily experience, the fundamental theme of Western art since the Renaissance. His appeal to Americans isnxe2x80x99t surprising. Apart from a peculiarly Russian mystical tradition, which he exploitedxe2x80x94evoking the compact spell of the icon, as a conduit of the divinexe2x80x94his work amounts to a cosmic xe2x80x9cSong of the Open Road.xe2x80x9d It conveys sheer, surging, untrammelled possibility."
Compare this say to the work whose content tells the story, 1812 overture, or any literal painting or work... which may have conceptual possibilities , but in the case of EDM, I think to conceptualise would be to force concepts where no were, or ignore the simple hedonism of EDM.
You might think of a fairground and a Becket play..
Not that clear, take EDM, just music for pleasure - in itself, cages 4'33" isn't just silence. That's in themselves, of course you can conceptualize on anything. But to get EDM, is to listen to the beats and sounds made by the performer, to get Cage or Vomir that is not the same. To get the cage is to think about sound and silence, to get Vomir is to think about noise, music and meaning.