narvis & ...pez wrote:
> 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 don't know. I haven't seen any of them. However, none of what I have seen
on the list seem to be new in any sense.
> i'm wonder if the the "beuysball" discussion is not
> related with "fluxaesthetic" problems
> from the mythical times to now?
No, there was just very little contact. Probably for reasons of chemistry. If
you compare Tomas Schmit with Wolf Vostell or Henry Flynt with Milan Knizak
you find entirely different worlds.
> i'm not exactly a serious person.
> & less, a serious researcher.
I didn't blame you for not being serious. I blamed Heiner Stachelhaus for not
doing serious research.
> why not see beuys under a fluxus group?
>
Wishful thinking doesn't work well with historical facts.
> to be fluxtically pure?
Fluxus was probably the most political incorrect you could be in the '60s.
Eric
