Tim wrote:
>> Old fluxus is
> now a RESOURCE, like old dada. New fluxus should avail itself of that
> resource, up to and including the appropriation of the name, without
> worrying for a second about the high-church issues that spoil(ed) some of
> the fun. New fluxus doesn't have to take on the burden of every crazy
uncle
> in the old-fluxus family. This is not a blood tie, or the eurodisneyland
of
> cold-war culture.<
then Patricia wrote:
>I agree. It's a reference. It's not a blueprint. It's lovely to open an
old
book and explore the value it contains, and the roots and the threads and
the
interpretations, and the philosophies can change our lives, and the
discussions
are fruitful, but in the end, it's growth and change.<
I think it is a blueprint in terms of the system of open exchange for which
Fluxus allows. If you get rid of the fact that Fluxus activities led to the
opportunity for everyone to participate in art-making and for everyone to
take that art-making seriously then it may as well not have existed.
To consider Fluxus as already consigned to history books is to miss the
point of what these same artists are doing today and the legacy of what they
started. The history books say Fluxus stopped with the death of Maciunas yet
Maciunas wasn't Fluxus on his own why should all the other member of Fluxus
have to stop being Fluxus when Maciunas died? Of course they don't, thus
Fluxus continues and new people become involved as they come into contact
with older Fluxus members thus providing the continuum of activity for
Fluxus to be alive and well today. Maybe as far as the gallery walls are
concerned Fluxus is dead but then galleries have a mausoleum quality anyway.
cheers,
Sol.
