Hi,
William Rieder schrieb:
> Dada questions the pre-existing rules by breaking old (arbitrary) ones
> Fluxus questions the pre-existing rules by making new (arbitrary) ones
>
> a fluxus project: spend the day making Dada-style art - possible
> a dada project: seems an oxymoron
This sounds very logical - i think why Dada never was a way of life is that they try to
destroy the rules. But regarding the systemic concepts of the late parsons or luhmann
or the psychoanalysis this would be the death of every individuum & autopoietic system.
Their idea is that a change is only possible if they want a chance. I think this idea
is more in Fluxus - to show alternatives to act and live.
The year argument is a bit thin to me - of course we in the 90ties are having another
focus on Fluxus and Dada. But if you are saying that if you are doing the "same" idea a
few years later, it's not a valid argument for a new design and name ... (don't get me
wrong - i don't think that the fluxers are bootleggers of Dada). Look at Pop Art and
the renaissance in the 80ties. Here they called it Neo-Pop Art. Offensive, but correct.
That Fluxus was also influenced by the post second world war time (like the whole
generation) is right - many new organisations (on a social level) with new ideas about
humanity and communication between cultures (they learned from the 2nd world war) were
founded. My idea is that Fluxus is also a artistic reaction with a pedagogical aspect -
what else is the idea that life is more important than art (robert filliou) or the idea
that every work of an artist is connected with chance and a way of communication
between the viewers (takako saito)?
