Hi Robin,
BTW - You other post the other day was v. interesting to me.
>One thing I don't like about Fluxus historically as an art form is that
some artist's work seemed based solely around tedium as a central theme, and
tedium is one thing I've always sought to escape! So I actively try to
avoid it in art pieces.. I prefer the more playful and interactive ones.<
I think Tedium has to be used sparingly and by and large Fluxus artists did
that. I must admit that I personally try not to make anything that's
tedious, but obviously someone viewing my work may disagree ;-) Also some
Fluxus pieces intending to be boring I actually find quite interesting the
more I think about them. There is great value for creative people in
exploring the mundane, it's just that you can't expect others who don't
share your passions to see beyond the surface tedium.
My enthusiasm for Fluxus has grown and grown over the years mainly because
it's the only 20th Century avant-gardism (with the exception of Mail Art)
that's still as viable today as it was when it began. Probably because the
approach of Fluxus allows one to continue being creative without any
limitations or obligations. Because many Fluxus works have very little
depth/rely upon simplicity (i.e. they tend to work on a viewer immediately
rather than require deep contemplation) it is easier for Fluxus artists to
continually explore new themes and thus be continually creative. This is
what appeals to me. Also being interested in experimental music I am most
impressed by the musical ideas present in Fluxus as an extension of Cage,
Satie etc but also an embracing of new directions like LaMonte Young's work,
minimalism, and also the large number of scores produced by Dick Higgins in
particular.
Anyhow, have said enough.
cheers,
Sol.
