Hi Owen and all,
Owen wrote:
>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:<
Yes it is an impossible task...but that's a good thing really and probably
why Fluxus is still so interesting to so many people today.
Owen your defining as not defining mentioned one strand of Fluxus as
"a historical moment or group that is understandable in terms of individuals
and
events"
In terms of the definition Roger was approaching would you consider
everything to be beginning in the Cage class and associated circle (AG
gallery/NY scene of the time) in terms of individuals and events...is this
the earliest manifestation of a the outlook that was to become Fluxus by
those artists that were to be a part of things later on.
BTW - Do you place Neo-Dada as a movement of the same time?...to say artists
associated with Neo-Dadaist tendencies later formed the backbone of the
fluxus outlook or.............
I know some people don't really agree with the idea of Neo-Dada....and it
seems a somewhat retrospective label....
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
cheers,
Sol.
PS. I haven't sent this many post in one day in ages...I'm rather enjoying
it. You've all got me thinking...thanks.
