Yes, this is all very well and good but where does it leave Roger's wobbly grinks?! Michael
--- secret fluxus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Mr. Bowman, > > Thank you for your thoughts. > > While we don't think there is a definitive answer to > any of these questions, > we do think some good work sheds light on the issues > you raise. > > Ric Allsopp, Ken Friedman, and Owen Smith edited an > issue of Performance > Research last year that explores these themes, and > then there are such books > as Dr. Smith's history of Fluxus, Hannah Higgins' > book, and Mr. Friedman's > Fluxus Reader. Looking further back, we have seen > excellent catalogues by > Estera Milman, Hnery Martin, and others. We don't > see these as old > arguments, but as an evolving discourse. > > We feel that one can answer some of these questions > by examining the > multiple ideas and practives of the Fluxus group: > even though Fluxus was > never a 'movement', it was a group of people, and > like any group, they left > thoughts and tracess. > > Despite the role George Maciunas once played, other > members of the group > actually exerted greater influence on the thinking > of the participants -- > George Brecht shaped the central medium of events, > Dick Higgins was a > primary philosophical voice, and others helped to > develop different kinds of > innovative strategies for performance, publishing, > production, and > reproduction. > > We, too, would welcome Dr. Smith's thoughts on these > issues, and the ideas > of Dr. Clavez. Both are scholars whose work has been > highly commended to us. > We have read Dr. Smith, but because Dr. Clavez > writes in French, we have not > read as much as we would like. > > Sincerely, > > Secret Fluxus > > > > > >"Discussions of history, criticism, or theory > >occupy a tiny fraction of list volume - > significantly less than 5%. List > >members seem to consider the suggestion that we > discuss these kinds of > >issues from time to time a bad idea. We gather that > this has been the case > >on Fluxlist in the past." > > > >I don't think that this is viewed as a bad idea, > however problems have > >arisen due to the sheer nature of fluxus. a major > problem, i feel, is that > >due to an inherent need for classification fluxus > has become something that > >it never actually was. this is a point that i have > made before. in my > >opinion fluxus can not be viewed as a single > entity, a group, a movement > >etc. i have no real idea myself as to how it > should be considered, (i find > >this hard to put into words - i have tried but i > just end up confusing > >myself!). at times we have a tendency to treat > fluxus as as this nice > >comfortable 'idea' that we all like, when i reality > it involves/ed a > >network > >of very different artists, working in very > different fields, often having > >very little, if anything in common at all. it could > be true to say that in > >the beginning there was a sharing if ideas and > sensibilities, especially > >under maciunas' 'control'. this however did not > last as the individual > >artists developed their own work and moved further > form maciunas' ideals. > >what unites these artists under the fluxus banner? > what gives one the > >right > >to use fluxus to describe their work and another > not? why is their such a > >scrabble to claim ownership of this word? these > are questions that > >intrigue > >me. > > > >the influence of 'fluxus ideals' on contemporary > practise is more > >interesting to me as it brings up the 'what is > fluxus?' question, which > >i've > >already stated - i haven't seen an answer which > satisfies me as yet > >(hopefully, owen, bertrand et al can join in here) > > > >alan > > _________________________________________________________________ > Express yourself with cool new emoticons > http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo > > ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
