[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Some contemporary Fluxus workers (e.g. Joe DeMarco) are using the term >avant-Flux.......................I think this is fairly appropriate. > >cheers, > >Sol. >
If Fluxus was the rear-garde (as maciunas sometimes described it) then maybe what is being discussed here is fluxus as a kind of reverse action so maybe we should describe it as rear-Flux and not avant-Flux. Although the term rear-Flux brings up all sorts of associations, many of which are rather funny, but it is more appropriate then the implication of avant, meaning ahead of or in front of. On a more general level I think that those of you who work in a Fluxus inspired/like/associated manner are perfectly legitimate in calling what you do fluxus. Now this is not to say that it is part of the historical Fluxus, but it is part of a fluxus attitude. It is important to consider and learn about the historical aspects of fluxus and the artists associated with it, but this is only a part of the picture. And I know that this may seem odd coming form a person who wrote a book on the history of Fluxus, but I have always held that what is interesting about fluxus is a concern not for borders (names, definitions and limitations) but for the act of continuation. fluxus lives if people continue to do and be fluxus and if we just see it as a historical movement associated with a few historical people then it will only be that and never anything more and that would be really sad. Owen
