<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, thanks!
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------014B16A6DEF1F1DAD1468513"
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: FLUXLIST
X-URL: http://www.fluxus.org/FLUXLIST
--------------014B16A6DEF1F1DAD1468513
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
to Ken Friedman, Timothy Porges, Sol Nte, Don Boyd, (those who have
responded so far),
and all other fluxlist subscribers, or anyone else to whom this message
is forwarded (and may concern):
Several weeks ago, I began "research" for a paper I have been writing,
about possible connections between Fluxus and some specific attitudes,
themes, subject matter (etc.) within 20th century literature.
I wanted to bring this into the present by connecting the phenomena to
artists who are still working today.
so good so far.
by the time my research brought me to submit some questions to FLUXLIST,
I was deciding which "contemporary" artists I would focus on, and I had
just begun to follow leads about Bruce Nauman. "GONG!"
I'm not sure how many of you remember the responses.
working with these leads, I found (from 25 pages of responses from
FLUXLIST subscribers...3/4 or so from K Friedman) that I was making
sweeping generalizations about the definitions (and boundaries) of
fluxus -- historically and currently.
I am finding that there have been many ideas about what fluxus was.
they have been put forth (documented) at different points in Fluxus
history (dates seem to be important here),
and the ideas thmselves are often specific to the different periods in
Fluxus history.
But these different ideas are spoken or written by, then documented by,
then supported (or used in support of other ideas) by a variety of
different individuals, often with different vested interests.
And because different people would seem to benefit from each of the
diferent versions (or similar versions with different emphasis), it's
difficult to believe that there has not been a historical, and an
ongoing struggle to control and create [art] history here.
what are scholars, historians, students, and/or younger artists to
believe?
it seems that to find something like an un-biased perspective on Fluxus
(like most historical movements) would be very difficult. in fact, a
definative or singular "story" or meaning regarding Fluxus, if not
impossible, would suffer from one dimensionality at best.
but like most people in my position, I am more interested in finding as
many accounts as possible (from the most to least canonical in art
historical terms), for comparison. and it would be interesting to temper
a reading of these accounts by looking at who has what to gain by it.
but there's no reason to re-invent the wheel. I'm sure someone has done
the groundwork for something like this already.
can anyone recommend a source that proposes anything like a "neutral"
(meta-) history
of how Fluxus has been seen and evaluated as a movement, but also as an
artistic "product"
or "stock" over the years? what I am most interested in is studying the
process of image creation for Fluxus, and how those connected to it
(indirectly, directly, or in whatever way) stand to profit from the
results of this struggle.
here is a summary of what I am loking for (a three part question):
1.then on then - documented (dated) accounts of what Fluxus is (or was,
depending). a history.
2.now on then - what different individuals or institutions choose to use
(of this historical stock), what is emphasised, if anything is taken out
of context or even inaccurately represented.
3.now on now - how do the different definitions, perspectives,
historical accounts, or different emphasis, effect people that still
have different vested interests NOW? in other words, in what way does
the struggle continue today?
(also included in this last part of the question (not sure if this is
even relevant, but more of a curiosity); I am wondering which vested
interests, if any, may stem from the idea of a Fluxus as a continuing
and current movement - i.e., that it did not end in, say, 1978?)
p.s. Please reply to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in addition to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, thanks!
-Scott Rigby
the basekamp�
215.592.7288
723 chestnut street
second floor
phila pa 19106
www.basekamp.com
