In a message dated 5/23/04 6:31:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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!).�
this is exactly what attracted me to Fluxus.In fact if Fluxus could be defined I wouldn't be so interested. Undefinable means no ownership, no ownership means there isnt one bossy elitist telling everyone else how to be.
Modern art's biggest crime (which I think defines what Fluxus isnt) is alienating everyone. The sterile gallery to the assumption that everyone "get" what the art is about.
Fluxus is the only thing that I have found that pushes against that.
The idea that one has to be educated to be apart of the art world is what has driven everyone away. Fluxus I feel does a good job of inclusiveness. Imagine how much rejection a working artist experiences in their lifetime!
The word play is crucial to Fluxus I feel. It borders on its own language, some sort of coded language that only we know. It goes on until something else comes along. One cant be intense constantly. People talk about the weather--it doesnt mean we're shallow- it means things aren't intense this particular moment.
I wouldnt dare disrespect what secret fluxus does but as an artist I am suspicious of art's history. Because I am not what Picasso did or Duchamp or Ken Friedman. I have to not care about them so that I can freely move forward. Unless you are an artist I don't think you can appreciate how easily it is to be imprisoned by the past or what so and so says art should be. This is what the real meaning of Fluxus is or at least its purpose: is to keep the artist free
by Madawg
