> South Dakota was a cultural wasteland when Ken came to visit in 1975. (at > least an "experimental art" wasteland) Such is Knox County, Ohio, where I > live now. I think those who discount Ken's contributions to Fluxus are > missing the boat. They may be thinking all is fine where they live and work. > But Ken had the courage to go off by himself. His goal was to visit all 50 > states if I recall. He looked in South Dakota and in South Carolina while > visiting me in those places. IT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND OPEN MINDED PEOPLE in > the heartland, USA. I've always felt you didn't have to be the greatest > artist in the world to contribute something back in your own community. > Tha's what I'm trying to do. Sales and Jon Hendricks be ------! > -Don Boyd
The question of discounting Ken's contribution to Fluxus was never the point in what I wrote, on the contrary: having worked with and for Ken Friedman since the last few years, I can tell the courage of this man, and his great human, artistic and scientific qualities. What I meant in my remark on Emmett's and Ren�'s exhibition was that Ken already proposed such type of prospectivist exhibition, 15 years before they did. So it was more to praise Ken for his action, than to discount it. However, this does not change a milimeter the problem that happened to rise, between him and some artists in Fluxus, and upon which, no one has a single influence. Bertrand
