> > I was reminded how much I liked the AP folks for their lush use of simple > materials, their material investedness. It's sorta like Fluxus for honest to god > sculptors. Are fluxus artists then not honest to god sculptors? Well, there's a > difference. Material investedness is much more intense for the AP . See Luciano > Fabro, say, and his gorgeously carved weird bird feet things. AP seems to allow > itself to lift off from the concept and follow sensuous form. This is very > appealing to me. > > Does anyone else want to discuss Fluxus's differences from concurrent artmaking > such as Arte Povera? To me this would be an interesting thread.
Food for thought. Thanks, Ann. I've read that Germano Celant coined the term Arte Povera (Italian for "poor" or "impoverished" art) to unite certain aspects of Conceptual, Minimal and Performance art. The Oxford Dictionary of Art states that he edited a book on the subject in 1969 and "hoped that the use of 'worthless' materials such as soil, twigs, and newspapers and the avoidance of the traditional idea of art as a collectable 'product' would undermine the art world's commercialism." I don't believe AP could be said to be a movement, but more of a concept titled by Celant for the artists he embraced, while Fluxus, if Maciunas would have it his way, was an organized movement, to begin with. It began as a publishing enterprise, but quickly became associated with performance art, as festivals were organized to publicize a planned printed anthology. The movement progressed to artist collaborated multiples. A similarity does exist between AP and Fluxus inasmuch as in Celent's phrase above and Maciunas' hope that the Fluxus multiples would usher in a "non art reality to be grasped by all peoples, not only critics, dilettantes and professionals." There is a definite crossover as exampled by the artists Joseph Beuys and Piero Manzoni, whom I've heard described as both AP and Fluxus, although in checking out the Walker site, they are not among the artists represented. Obviously Beuys use of simple materials such as fat and felt (concept taken from lifesaving materials given to him after an airplane crash) could be defined as AP, while his use of multiples was definitely Fluxus. Of course, this also lends itself to conceptualism (idea more important than the finished product). Manzoni worked in multiples, sometimes shit, sometimes eggs, and sculptures of cotton wool, fibreglass and fake bread, again both AP and Fluxus. Conceptualism? Hmmmmm..... However, as far as progression, Fluxus has pretty much stayed within the original concepts, performances, etc. in repeating them, with the exceptions of Beuys, Yoko Ono and Nam June Paik - whereas AP has really broken its original foundation and boundaries. The one artist represented at the Walker that I am most familiar with is Michelangelo Pistoletto, who has been producing phenomenal installations since "The Office of the Black Man" where he records his own past visible through computers and oversize photographs. I would say that AP has become much more grandiose, end product wise, than Fluxus - perhaps much more saleable, which would, of course, defeat its original definition. What did you think of the show, Ann, did you see the use of "worthless" materials much? Also, is the catalogue worth a go? Best, PK > > > AK > > "Mark L. Hepp" wrote: > > > Greetings, > > I am new to this list. I just joined a few days ago and haven't noticed any > > activity. I was wondering if this list is still active or could it be that I > > joined during some sort of lull period. Anyways, I also wanted to > > shamelessly plug the improv ensemble of which I am a member. My ensemble, > > Robot vs. Rabbit, is an instrumental improv noise-psych ensemble. If you get > > a chance check us out. There are cdrs and mp3s available for anyone > > interested. > > > > Regards, > > Mark Hepp > > > > http://www.robotvsrabbit.com > > > > http://www.mp3.com/rabbot
