I'd just like to go on the record as saying that Eric Salvaggio knows
Ken Friedman much better than I do and any descriptions of Ken by my are
obviously inaccurate. There is only one Ken and Eric Salvaggio knows him
well.
Cheers,
RA
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> Eryk Salvaggio is more fluxus than Eric Andersen
> or Ken Friedman would ever want to be.
>
> Ken did not have a gentle sense of humor.
>
> [I like Ken. But he did not have a gentle sense of humor.]
>
> Eric Andersen does not contribute to fluxus except to complain.
> This makes me think he is Dutch, perhaps even Belgian.
>
> [I appreciate Erics approach to fluxus. I wish he continued it.]
>
> The list has unfortunately degenerated since discussion of
> fluxus history has lost its focus: ironically, I was one of the
> main champions for a return to the creation of modern work
> rather than academic discussion of the past. What I longed
> for was a serious discussion of new work on the level of the
> old; which Ken did not manage to do very well (old work
> and new work were rigidly seperated, and no bridge was
> drawn between the two, in any sort of interesting manner.)
>
> Meanwhile, however, the list is now merely production with
> very little conceptual juice. No offense pals. I like that its a
> beehive, I just wish we'd take the honey a little more seriously.
>
> Ken is gone, and Eric states that Ken claimed to know the only
> true history of fluxus, but still, Eric hardly steps up to plate to
> bat his version of various events. A Friedman/Andersen exchange
> might have been fun to watch. Interesting to learn from; to make
> up our own minds.
>
> Its a shame Ken left the list; but its a bigger shame that Eric
> Anderson may as well not be here, by his level of participation.
