> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sol Nte [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 10:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Why?
>
The connection, nearly always drawn but almost never thought
through, between fluxus and dada, is a topic as old as fluxus itself. The
one point of connection that is unarguable has to do with the ambitions of
the founder(s) -- Maciunas in his Flynt period: the ambition to replace the
category "art" with the category of one's invention. The dadaists imagined
themselves doing this through revolutionary action of some kind but never
got around to it. The fluxus plan seems to have been one of marketplace
competition. Fluxus would displace "art" by being funnier, cheaper,
adjustable to more kinds of individual use, and so on. Aside from that,
fluxus artists have always had much more in common with
constructivists/productionists than with dadaists.
Yes, it's a problem that most art teachers are pig-ignorant. But the
REAL problem fluxus has always had with the academy is one of competing
elites. Academics have perceived fluxus as a kind of party to which they
hadn't been invited. Maciunas' lists, as a primary artifact of "true"
fluxus, do nothing to dispel this notion. I remember Higgins and Friedman
both regretting this "charmed circle" aspect of what was otherwise an open
and democratic movement, not the art-cult it was largely thought to be. For
most current academics, though, none of this is at issue. Fluxus is just
like dada for them becasue they don't know shit about either.
