Rebecca wrote: > >but what i am really > looking to write about is how Fluxus is not dead, but still has a place in > the art world.
This is probably too late for your paper but I thought I'd give the matter some consideration from a point of general interest. The Maciunas vision of Fluxus is dead, it died with him, but then again most artists associated with Fluxus didn't seem to agree with his vision of it, although it was his energy in promoting it that gained Fluxus its place in the history books. However Fluxus as a way of working for eclectic and open-minded artists is still very much in existence today in several areas: Mail art in its current form probably owes more to Fluxus than Ray Johnson because of its spirit of open exchange. Johnson's mail art centred around a group who found and knew each other outside of their mail-based interactions. Today's mail artists find each other through the mail art network and interact through it often never meeting. This internationalist policy of exchanging work and collaboration has much in common with early Fluxus when members in America, Europe and Japan used the postal system to keep in touch and organise projects, indeed many original Fluxus artists are still involved in Mail Art. Another area where Fluxus methods have been employed (both consciously and unconsciously) is the internet: Both this list and the many other collaborative experimental art communities on the web all employ some Fluxus methods in their construction and interaction. As to the question of whether or not Fluxus is dead: It is acceptable to consider that those artists working today who're in contact with original Fluxus artists are themselves a new generation of Fluxus artists since such contact and exchange of ideas would essentially constitute membership of a Fluxus school of thought. The original group was little more before being named and was essentially an aggregate of artists concerned with particular concepts and issues. Such currents of thought are still providing material for artists working today and those who exchange ideas with original Fluxus artists are going to be those whose work creates "Fluxus: the next generation" as it were. However without some kind of focused leadership and notion of membership Fluxus is unlikely to ever return to what it was under Maciunas. However this is by no means a bad thing. after all things should progress. Many original members of Fluxus will discount the idea of new Fluxus artists but many would be open to the idea. The concept of Fluxus being dead with Maciunas comes mostly from collectors (e.g. the Silvermans) and those who follow their lead (e.g. Jon Hendricks), however these people have some economic gain from Fluxus being dead. My personal opinion is that Fluxus is alive and still finding new members although the time when the name Fluxus was useful to artists is perhaps past because of the cultural baggage (resulting from the historians, commentators, critics and some of the artists themselves) which it now implies. cheers, Sol.
