Hi! Well I�m going to dip my toe in and see what happens. The questions that keep on cropping up for me are those to do with the �FLUXUSidea�, what cultural reality(ies) does/did it exist within and what indeed was the cultural realty(ies) in operation in the 60 when he idea emerged.
If FLUXUS is an �attitude�, and lets say NOT a theology, how might that attitude fit the current reality(ies) at work within the culture(s) in which we operate right now? What part has it (the set of ideas!) have to play in the current cultural dynamic? Indeed what culture(s) are we(?) operating within? There may be value (say intellectual value) in adopting a retroFLUXUS stance in order to get a handle on the ideas �the attitude� embraces � or was/is it embraced? But that consideration alone would seem to ignore the potential of the idea(s) that gave FLUXUS its impetus in the 60s. Was everything that needed to be discovered, indeed discovered in the 60s/70s? Is the exploration complete? Can indeed we really contemplate a retroFLUXUS? I wonder about that as I send this eMail and contemplate technology�s impact upon ideas and the ways we understand the world � or don�t as is often the case. The idea/attitude would seem to have its reality in the context of a cultural paradigm. What is (was?) that paradigm? Where does (did?) it exist? In what context? I guess that these are some of the questions you might have a go at answering in order to teach FLUXUS. To me the fact that an idea might throw up such question makes the teaching of it all the more worthwhile. This is of course so unless one expects the student to mimic the idea�s/attitude�s outcome rather than have them embrace it or engage with it. OR is it that the idea is understood (is being presented) as dogma rather than �attitude�. Is that the issue? Am I off beam here? Ray > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:59:18 EDT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Fluxus in School > > > In a message dated 3/31/04 9:20:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > you have to at their stuff. > > > whut?? > I think you are right but I find it problematic to the very idea (in my mind) > of fluxus to be very beholdin to its history so much. What enriches you and > your group perhaps intimidates others and in this lies the most core idea > about fluxus:that it is a free expression. To care about the Codex or other > fluxus writing so much risks a strict adherence. The idea for me is that it is > the present and -not that it has nothing to do with the past-but I dont want > to give to much care to what Joe Blow did in the sixties -you know. It makes > me look over my shoulder and I don't want to do that. I appreciate what you > all are doing by keeping aspects of historical fluxus alive but I have a > different agenda. Dawg
