on 11/27/01 8:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Although it's always tempting to add prefixes where > ever possible, putting "post" on wouldn't really help.
Yes, they add to the "problem" of understanding what the root word was originally. I just like "post-" because it doesn't describe the work itself, it just mentions what it follows. Which doesn't help to define either, but then that's what I was saying anyway! I like the abstraction that terminology can have on particular already-vague notions... coming to a consensus seems like wishful thinking for something like Fluxus, and to me, maybe a little contradictory! > To say something is post-fluxus would imply that those > involved are thinking differently, or using different > methods. Not necessarily... "post-feminism", while silly, is a term which is often applied to the more open-ended discussions following heavy feminist discourse in universities and academic journals. I've seen "post-Duchampian" used not for movements, but to describe works of those using Duchampian concepts in a more contemporary context... So the term "post-" can be applied to the conditions around the works themselves, or simply to say that people are less organised or harder to pinpoint. > Now "re-" is a charming prefix, which could come in > handy. I prefer "re-" to "neo-", which I've always thought was a little silly. care, anne -- Anne Drogyness, "artist" "Interested in nothing"
