> One of the problems with the Fluxlist is that it is so much based on
> mythology and ignorance.
one of the interesting thing with fluxus is that it is so much based on
mythology and mythomany
> E.g Bertrand wrote: "The ridiculous way that Eric Andersen still say that
> Ken Friedman came to late to be a truly Fluxus artist."
>
> I never said that. What I did was to inform the list that none of the
> artists initially associated with Fluxus ever saw Ken Friedman as an
> artist.
You did not inform the list, you claimed, from your point of view, that none
etc.
To us he seemed to be an agent and promoter. And that most of us
> would have preferred that he promoted something else. Also with some
satire
> I pointed to the fact that he claims to have made Fluxus work i 1956,
being
> 6 years old and 6 years before the first festivals in 1962.
> Be kind enough to quote me correctly.
uh uh, the old "fluxus mozart" story (Wolf Vostell is to be said to have
given this nickname to Ken Friedman)... so let me be exact, if not correct,
in my quotation also. I bet you remember of this post Ken sent the 26 of
August 1999, in answer to a former post of you:
"I never claimed to have done Fluxus pieces in 1956. To the contrary, I have
stated that I did not consider what I was doing to be art when I was a
youngster in New London. I was doing things for which I had no name.
Dick Higgins saw one of my pieces when I visited him in New York in 1966.
On what he saw as the strength of that piece - a version of which became my
first Fluxus box, >The Open and Shut Case< - he thought I ought to
participate in Fluxus.[...] Dick sent me to meet George Maciunas. When I met
George, he
invited me to join Fluxus because of what I had been doing and framed these
activities in the context of Fluxus. (Dick has written about that in an
essay, I think for an exhibition at Emily Harvey Gallery.)
George encouraged me to write down the various nameless things I had done.
It is a fact that these pieces are included in my event scores. It is not a
fact that I called them "Fluxus pieces" in 1956. This is the account I have
always given.[...]
As Dick explained the Fluxus Mozart title to me - and he's the one who told
me about it -- Wolf Vostell liked my work. Wolf and I traded work several
times over the years, so I had no reason to believe otherwise. Eric, on the
other hand, disliked Wolf. Eric has often asserted that Wolf - Like Beuys -
had no part in what Eric saw as real Fluxus work. Strange that Eric should
know Wolf's mind so well at this late date. Unless, of course, Eric is
channeling.
To put this in perspective, Eric is the man who once explained that George
Maciunas never understood anything about Fluxus, either. Of course, their
dislike was mutual. George ultimately came to think of Eric as a
self-aggrandizing egotist. If, on the other hand, Eric complains that
George never understood Fluxus, perhaps it's because George lost interest
in Eric's work after one or two projects."
end of quotation
Bertrand.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
