[email protected] on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 12:10 PM -0500 wrote: > >I think that the answers that I seek arise from two questions: > >1) How to deal with critics, curators, and historians who insist that Fluxus >only existed at a particular time in history, and that it only involved the >group of atists who produced work that they called Fluxus within that time >frame? > >I know that one could choose to either ignore or confront them - but what >about a "middle way" towards mutual understanding?
Yes, a middle way would seem the best - the curator types would have to admit that there is an ongoing tradition at least (and they are blind if they don't not see it) and the artists will have to admit that they are part of a tradition not the "original group." Now, yes this is separation of new and old seems counter to aspects of a Fluxus sensibility and, in fact, it is counter - at the same time historical distinctions are still valid and useful. The same way context/history is not only necessary but central to how we "make meaning" in general it is valid in all aspects of understanding of the whole issue of Fluxus, what it is and what it is not. Fluxus' history and its current strains/traditions is a major focus of the two issue that Ken and i did not Visible language. I have a section of artists statements on Fluxus and its influence on them from 12 current practitioners (and several on the Fluxlist) including Alan Bowman, David-Baptiste Chirot, mekal and, Sol Nte, and Walter Cianciusi. In the end I personally will come down to a different question and that is is it interesting? (there is plenty of stuff called Fluxus that is not very interesting and much stuff that is "not Fluxus" that is quite interesting). > > >2) How to deal with issues within the current community of practitioners who >seem divided between those that feel they are producing "new Fluxus work" >and those who feel that they are producing new work, of no particular school >or movement, but "in the Fluxus tradition"? > >Maybe these are both questions for which definitive answers can never be >found and for which the only solution is ongoing dialogue... Well answers are always less interesting then good questions. As to how to address this - in part you have to let the artists speak for themselves, but also realize that the audience will also have their own voice in the matter. This way they the answer of is it new work or part of a tradition will be answered collectively by both artist and audience, kind of like the art coefficient idea of Duchamp's but applied not to "is it art?", but "what kind of art is it?" > > >By the way, could you or Ann post a link to a site from which issues of >Visible Language can be ordered? http://www.id.iit.edu/visiblelanguage/ The web site is a little out of date so it does not list the issues, but they are 39.3 Fluxus and Legacy and 40.1 Fluxus After Fluxus and there is contact information about getting copies, it should be abut 20.00 for the double issue. Owen
