> Again there seem to be some misunderstandings around. I have never told a person > that he could not be an artist or fluxus of even a fluxus artist. > Initially we never used that term. Now we use it on and off becau se the world > seems to insist. > The interesting thing is not if you are an artist or fluxus, - but why you want > to be so. What do you want to achieve from these conjurations. Why do you need > to adhere to something? Why is identification with some kind of mythology so > important to you?
I think this is an interesting question. There is a great deal of mythology which has been built up around Fluxus - those of us who weren't there have to rely on the word of those who were. This list consists of a great majority of people who weren't there, a few of whom are arguing the right to be associated (possibly only by name) to Fluxus If they so wish. I am neither for nor against this, but i am curious as to why. If i call my work 'neo-dada', of 'post-modernmidlifecrisiscomeearlyist' nobody will give a shit but if i claim it to be fluxus, all hell breaks loose (in this small arena anyway) (NB i am not a fluxus artist and i do not produce fluxus/ist/ish work. I do admit that at once i thought i did. now i dont feel the need to label it - sometimes, actually, a lot of the time its probaly better if i kep it to myself) anyway, where was I? oh yes "Why is identification with some kind of mythology so > important to you?" perhaps this is a good point for discussion. I have had the good fortune to meet many of the surviving "originals" and some "later arrivals" and heard their views first hand, reminiscences, memories etc. At no point has anyone talked about this wonderful "Fluxustime". Sure, things were new, fun, interesting,whatever, but perhaps history and writers have built a myth from a reletively mundane story. I don't know. alan
