Heiko
There are examples of artists who were notable in Fluxus but also worked in a
Pop style. Some Robert Watts work is very Pop and of course the work of Ray
Johnson (who dissociated himself from Fluxus and everything else by doing
"nothings") is considered very Pop. Also Claus Oldenberg who was associated at
certain points with Fluxus but wasn't really Fluxus at all because of the ego
problem.
You have to remember that many artists associated with Fluxus did work which
was not Fluxus and which might have been more Pop and also that the
demarkation between Fluxus and other "movements" was at times quite fluid.
RA
Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
> > > To my knowledge Ginsberg was never part of Fluxus the only beat who was
> >
> > So was Nauman, so what ?
>
> >From this Al Hanson catalogue, I got the impression that the most
> important time of "fluxus" was the time before the coining of the label,
> immediately after the Cage class. So who was a "fluxus" member then ? And
> how important is this label etc.. ?
>
> IMHO, might be wrong, "fluxus" members werent the only "fluxish" people.
> "fluxus" was just a part of pop. "fluxus" philosophy was just a part of
> pop philosophy. See the artists in "pop architecture", I know that Higgins
> was VERY proud, that he had made this book, it wasnt "fluxus
> architecture"...With Richard Hamilton on the cover....who wasnt less
> "fluxish" than Beuys, who...but this is another story.
>
> Heiko
