RE: 'what is' debate
As for the whole Fluxus is/Fluxus isn't debate - again we're off on the same old debate. It's a valid one and one which I'm glad to see back on the list. the more i see and the more i read i become more of the opinion that fluxus doesn't exist in the way in which many want it to. Go back to Maciunas premise that the artist basically was of little importance (i don't remember the manifesto wording offhand) and that the general processes of daily life etc (sorry for the vagueness) were as everybit as important in an 'artistic' process as anything the so called egocentric artist could produce. i'm having trouble expressing exactly what i want to say here but: from a personal viewpoint - i can see a common problem, one which i am guilty of and struggle against with little success. - my work, to the greater extent is concerned with my everyday life, experiences, thoughts etc I view my daily routine and my surroundings in a certain way. i have done so for many years, long before i was aware of fluxus i was producing interventions and scores - mainly to confuse and amuse my colleagues. if asked i could explain why - and my motives tied in to what maciunas' initial thoughts on the artist/art. in essence i was producing works not as an artist but as part of my everyday life/as an office clerk. on discovering Fluxus i was confronted with the fact that this could be validly classed as 'art' and with this i began to feel obliged to justify what i was doing within an 'art' context. (my fault i know). i don't know, perhaps consciously, perhaps subconsciously i began to try and align myself with some known historical context/precedent (Fluxus - Dada - etc). as an artist being asked to explain what i was doing it became easier to explain within the contexts of fluxus. as i developed so did my interest in and knowledge of fluxus to the point where, now i am beginning to realise my errors and their effects on my ability to analyse and explain my own work. through this list and through experience with working with various fluxus artists i am beginning to think that Fluxus doesn't really exist, and that many, like me, are making the mistake of trying to use this 'name' to explain themselves. it'�s ok for Ay-O, Emmett Williams, Bens Vauter and Patterson to use Fluxus as a word in their work - but if you look (and i say this with great respect) it's become like a marketing ploy, a recognisable logo if you like - but at least they were there working with maciunas. try likening ay-o to emmett to ben to ben in terms of their work and once you get past early scores and texts............they have little in common. then spread the net wider and it becomes more apparent just how little ties so called 'fluxus' artists together. in many cases there is nothin bar a shared friendship with GM So, are we making a great mistake in trying to work out this fluxus thing in terms of our contemporary ideas and practice? are we claiming allegience to the flag of a country which was long ago dissolved and which has returned to numerous, independent city-states? alan www.freeformfreakout.org
