At 12:35 am +0100 9/12/00, Eric Andersen wrote:
>I don't think it can be discussed who is more or less Fluxus, since
>there were (are) no shared aesthetics or strategy among the part takers
>in the network. Consequently we never had such discussions among
>ourselves.
what about the recents fluxlist box, & the fluxstamp project
(& roger steven's cageanian poetrybook) these are not
a "fluxumm aesthetic sharing" or do we don't move in an strategy
to go on a new "flux the way" of process art?
i'm wonder if the the "beuysball" discussion is not
related with "fluxaesthetic" problems
from the mythical times to now?
>
>narvis&...pez refer to a book by Heiner Stachelhaus. It seems to be full
>
>of misinformation. E.g. a sentence such as "..... Nam June Paik, one of
>the leaders of Fluxus movement" doesn't make sense. A person who had
>made serious research would never have uttered such nonsense.
i'm not exactly a serious person.
& less, a serious researcher.
i'm too small to flux the entire fluxusworld
alone /that's explain why i need the fluxlist
& why embrace the current "fluxus moment" here
right now.
And Fluxus
>
>was certainly not a Neodadaist movement. Maciunas would have liked it to
>
>be in the '60s but only Ben Vautier could support him in that. There was
>
>no special relationship between Beuys and Maciunas as claimed by
>Tachelhaus. In fact Maciunas didn't like Beuys at all. It is correct
>that Beuys as professor of the Academy in Dusseldorf took part in the
>Fluxus festival there in 1963. Nobody remember in detail what he did. It
>
>was some kind of inverted, short Shamanistic ritual.
to remove a hare hart sound like a "short Shamanistic ritual"
Beuys didn't
>draw any attention before Aachen in 1964 when he made his acid / earth /
>
>crucifix piano and was punched in his nose. George Brecht, Al Hansen, La
>
>Monte Young and Bob Watts did not take part in the Festum Fluxorum in
>Dusseldorf, as claimed by Tachelhaus. It is pure nonsense to claim that
>he was left outside any Fluxus circle after the festival in Dusseldorf.
>E.g. he was invited to Aachen, 24 Stunden etc.
>Fluxus was a completely open platform in 1962-63. I guess more than a
>200 people participated during these years, but not all of them became
>part of the international network. Nobody was excluded, - except in the
>Maciunas jokes.
why not see beuys under a fluxus group?
i don't see a reason specially by his
70 actions & 50 instalations btw 1947-1986
fluxus art & life.
maybe he done some politically incorrectness
to be fluxtically pure?
...pez
