Hi Ray and all, >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 <
One solution to the employment of past artistic models in contemporary practice has been offered by IRWIN with their retro principle http://www.nskstate.com/athens/irwin/texts/retro.asp I'm just reading their Retroprincip catalogue at the moment that I got the other weekend. IRWIN employ historical models of avantgarde praxis in contemporary activity through their use of retroavantgarde....read the above link and here they reference Malevich in current work http://www.nskstate.com/athens/irwin/texts/icons-review.asp Of course IRWIN could be interpreted in the context of plagiarism also but I think their ideas are strong enough to counter such arguments. BTW - as regards the Fluxus Codex we are very lucky to have such easy access to thorough documentation like this....I've yet to see another art catalogue that is equally comprehensive. I also understand where Madawg is coming from on this but without some evaluation of current fluxus practice situated within the historical activity/traditions from which it evolves it would be very difficult to make real progress. cheers, Sol.
