[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Sol wrote
>>Fluxus I'm no art historian and really don't have the necessary
>qualities
>to
>>write this kind of thing well, since we have experts like Owen on this
>list
>>I hope we can utilise their talents :-)
>okay
>your definition looks good to me, Sol,
>but if Owen were to contribute...
>(it need only be a couple of sentences)
>on the other hand
>we ARE talking about a book of poems here
>and the poems are the thing
>so I'd be happy just to put the 12 Fluxus Ideas
>as the last resort...
>so... Owen?
OK - I have been reading this discussion with interest because in some
ways (although it may seem simple to give a short definition of Fluxus)
this is an impossible task. But here is my take on defining as not
defining:
What is Fluxus?
When one seeks to define Fluxus one needs to start by first asking what
is the aim of the definition? This is necessary because Fluxus can be
defined in two connected but differing ways. First, as a historical
moment or group that is understandable in terms of individuals and
events, and second, as an attitude towards life and creativity which
has no historical frame, but is instead a vital and continuing way of
thinking and acting. If one looks at Fluxus both as a historical entity
and as an attitude it becomes clear that neither is fully complete
without the other and neither is necessitated by the other, they are
simply two aspects of a associated whole. In the end the point of
defining should become replaced by an awareness of the endeavors of a
variety of artists whose works were an attempt initiate, explore, and
propagate an set of interrelated ideas which have come to be called
Fluxus and we should in turn seek to continue this process - not by
defining in words, but in thought and action.
Owen
