Well if everything doesn�t have a history it almost certainly has a chronology no matter how you understand that � it didn�t exist (we imagine), it came into being ( we deduce), it exists (we think) and then it ultimately changes/ceases to exist maybe ( we expect).
If there is a chronology then there is almost certainly a story(ies) linked to it (and all of that!). Some would say that once you have a chronology there must be stories linked to it too and then the two together might constitute �a history� ( something�s histories?) ... In many ways it hardly matters which way we choose to explain it, or what we call it, it ( the idea!) is there to be understood. Napoleon had an interesting way of understanding this kind of stuff and said something along the lines that �history is the version of past events that people can agree upon today� and then there is the �truth thing� . And as for that, Swami (someone with a very long name beginning with V) said of that �truth is what two people can agree upon right now and in the future it will, hopefully, be something else because we will have learned some more and experienced something more� - or words to that effect. I guess we could all agree that everything has a past with stories attached, a �meaningful(?)� present and a future with a potential for change. Everything might be understood in the context of its past, presence and potential. So it�s hard for me to imagine anything that doesn�t have a context in time (a chronology?) and a story(ies) and thus history. It�s how it�s understood that is problematic, and sometimes contentious, and especially so when there are competing imperatives/contenders to be �the holder of the truth� � however it's understood and for whatever purpose. Slippery stuff, truth! FLUXUS seems to have existed � there seems to be good evidence for that � and likewise it seems to continue in some way � there seems to be good evidence for that too. Thus it�s a phenomena and it could also be understood as an attitude/idea (or set thereof) of some substance and if not, then why are we discussing it, and here? What seems to be contentious is the how, the when, in whose hands and with what authority all this is held. Then there is the original question, how (which ways?) do you teach Fluxus? Over and out again, Ray From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 7 Apr 2004 11:34:51 -0000 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FLUXLIST: history free? "JI think fluxus isn't anything-- fluxus is made up of what you and I are doing (B (Jin this present moment and that is indescribable because it has no history" surely everything which exists, at the moment of it's coming into existence, begins to leave behind it its history (assuming we take the common accepted, day to day approach that time is linear and goes forwards!) what we do as artists we must be able to describe (or at least express) what its about, in some way. that is not to say justify it or eplain it so as to make others understand or accept it - but surely we must be able to reason to ourselves just. as artists everything we do has a history, whether we are conscious of it or not - this 'history' does not always mean historical precedent, or the conscious influence of existing works or ideas. however everything we produce is produced 'after' the initial thought/idea/moment of inspiration or impulse and therefore has a history - surely therefore we have some sort of responsability, even if it only for ourselves, to attempt to find a way to understand what we have done - if we understand, surely there is room for description. alan www.freeformfreakout.org From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 7 Apr 2004 14:46:33 -0000 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FLUXLIST: is Fluxus fluxus 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
