Terrence writes;
ok ok i am playing devils advocate (and being a bit playful) but really one must go on
you have to look at the circumstances of the time. He was way ahead of his time but so
were others. People still paint and many more paint and don't know a thing of the 1913
armory show. I think its important to have inconsistancies and not just be a producer
or
a fame monger for that matter.
Patricia wrote;
>
> - he was the ultimate in risk-takers because he didn't give a damn.
In a way he had nothing to loose other painters were gaining more attention than him.
He
owes more to them and to Dada and the surrealists. He was intellectually
opportunistic. I
don't belive he was taking the lead.
T. ;-)
> I see him as an
> artist who broke the rules, changed the course, and because of his fame, or infamy,
> was written up in capital letters, thus, got noticed. Speaking of same (fame?),
>where
> would the art world be without The Armory Show of 1913?
>
> Pulling down a tome and resorting to quotes, and quotes within quotes from the
> catalogue accompanying "The Spirit of Fluxus"
>
> "Especially influential to Fluxus were the ideas of the artist and philosopher Marcl
> Duchamp (associated both with Dada and Surrealism) and the composer and teacher John
> Cage (an admirer of Duchamp who maintained an interest both in Dada and in
> non-Western, nonrationalized thought, and who passed on these interests to a new
> generation of young, postwar artists). As Ben Vautier wrote: 'Without Cage, Marcel
> Duchamp, and Dada, Fluxus would not exist...Fluxus exists and creates from the
> knowledge of this post-Duchamp (the ready-made) and post-Cage (the depersonalization
> of the artist) situation."
>
> PK
