Re: FLUXLIST: history free?

[Alan Bowman]

our description!   if you read what i wrote you'll see that i am not talking about justification, art history or anything like that.  but i do believe that we need to have some way of explaining what we do (to ourselves at least), in order for us to understand it ourselves. my main point was, in fact, that 'everything' has a history - and that the comment   "fluxus is made up of what you and I are doing in this present moment and that is indescribable because it has no history"   is inaccurate inso much that it is not indescribable. surely if you produce a piece (for example) or work in a wayin which you find indescribale, there is a problem there.  does this lack of ability to descibe not also bely a lack of understanding? surely, even if you arrive at a point where you are not sure just how you got there, your own personal 'history' and your knowledge of yourself, should allow you to attempt some sort of descriptive process - analysis.             From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 12:33 AM Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: history free? In a message dated 4/7/04 5:16:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: if we understand, surely there is room for description. who's description? Thomas Kinkade is the most famous artist in America today which is historically accurate. Does that mean he should get written about in the history books? How long did we think one way about art until guys like John Berger came along- now we think a different way. If you are an artist you can't let art history guide or intimidate you. That's the problem-people say , "hey I cant do what Michaelangelo did so why try?" That's what is great about fluxus-its the first art movement that says screw what everyone did-you dont need an education or talent. Too much has already been written  about fluxus already... Dawg