Right.
"Porges, Timothy" wrote:
> > -----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.
