Timothy Porges writes: >i think the point i'm missing here has to do with fun. old fluxus had a lot >to do with fun, though it was often twee, Unitarian-church-basement fun. but >that was probably just me. > >So what's fun now? But Fluxus wasn't 100% fun, there was also the element of boredom, i.e. non-fun, that was a part of more than a few works. I am now thinking of Tomas Schmit's piece where he performs until the audience has left and the janitor asks him to leave the stage. That does not sound like fun to perform or watch. But I agree that humor was a large and important indegident in the Fluxus cupcake. Much of this humor, at least when I first started to learn of Fluxus (and similar events) in 1992 was of a good-natured shocking reaction; "They COULDN'T do that, could they?" I almost couldn't believe that people could 1) think up such things and 2) present them as art works/performances. I wasn't outraged; I loved it and laughed along with each piece I read about. And I think part of the humor, for me, was that in 1992 imagining the recation of these pieces in 1962 or whatever. Would these pieces have the same effect now? On us? Or would we just think "oh that's been done before"? -Josh Ronsen http://www.nd.org/jronsen --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy.
