Dear Secret FLuxus,

Your lasts posts are the best Fluxus and the most fluxian contributions
you've ever made to the list, please keep on, I really loved the whole
mixud-up of confusion about the apologies to the wrong people for having
mispelled their names sent to the wrong person about the necessity to be
clear when attributing a work to an artist by contesting wrongly a correct
title.
If this make sense to anyone, we're on Fluxlist.

There is one category Alan B. forgot in his list:

Histrionicians of Art

Maybe the most common one among Fluxus followers, theoreticians and
practicioneers
Welcome aboard folks!!

Bests,

Bertrand

PS: I'm not sure that Alan noted that anywhere in the posts he sent you, but
he has been for years the assistant of Emily Harvey (ask to Ken for more
details about her if you need) and has worked, lived, drunk, performed,
eaten, talked, etc. with ALL the living (surviving?) Fluxus Artists longer
than we did altogether. One can say that he has breathed Fluxus for years,
and hanged to its mammals to get any little drip (music) of Fluxus milk.
However, it never prevented him from having his own work (and a pretty good
one), and I can tell you it's not so easy with such monsters around (not to
crocodiles in the same lake). (at that very moment I'm sure he his very
upset with me sayong all that, but...-Alan just send me the address for one
of your very well found definitions).
Anyway, I hope you'll find you're place on FLuxlist, because I'm very
interested by your interpretation of the conservation of Fluxus, beyond the
pointless polemics. Emmett Williams often works with a german group of
professionnal Fluxus interprets (Die Maulwerker I think or something
approaching ) and he's used to say that they perform the pieces better than
any Fluxus artists ever did. This may be an interesting track for your group
(even though you seem to develop you're interpretations of the performing of
the scores).

>Dear Fluxlisters,

>We seem to have confused Alan Bowman with Allan Revich.

>It is to Allan Revich that we should have written, 'We have explained who
we
>are and what we do a few times now. We will be happy to do it again.
>Following a few events and accidents last month, we are rethinking our own
>activities, so our view of ourselves may change, but we'll post a
relatively
>current statement. We do indeed include a couple of art students in our
>midst, and many argue that solicitors are wankers, but the rest of the
>labels on your list are hardly neutral. If you truly intend no offence,
>there are better ways to avoid giving offence than by asking whether we are
>"killjoys, pompous little twerps, little children with big mouths" etc.'

>Your long list of pejoratives is designed to offend. So is your manner of
>addressing us as "Mr. and Mrs. Secret Fluxus," and the like when you know
we
are a group. We use the polite form in all correspondence because, as an
anonymous group, we can't claim to know any one person directly or on a
first-name basis.

Mr. Bukoff has changed the purpose of Fluxlist, and the reasons we joined
are no longer among the purposes. If you or others find our interests
bothersome, we will be happy to leave the list.

Sincerely,

Dear Fluxlisters -- and Alan Bowman,

In our haste to clarify our earlier note, we failed to state that we
apologize to Alan Bowman. We did not intend the mildly irate reply that we
posted by misreading the header on his short note as the header for Allan
Revich's long note and harsh list of labels.

Sorry.

Secret Fluxus

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "secret fluxus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 9:29 AM
Subject: FLUXLIST: Lord Russell's Pair of Dogs


> Dear Ms. Forer,
>
> We don't recall whether Allan Revich signed one of his messages as Secret
> Fluxus, but he is not one of us.
>
> We have made the astonished discovery that artists in several places now
> claim to be members of Secret Fluxus. There is a simple way to tell who is
> NOT a member of Secret Fluxus. No one who claims to be a member of Secret
> Fluxus is one of us. The members of our little chamber orchestra are known
> only to one another and to a few family members who sometimes perform with
> us or join us in family picnics while we plan our activities.
>
> As Lord Russell would have noted, this makes it easy to know who is NOT
> Secret Fluxus while making it impossible to know who IS.
>
> We gather from the tone of Mr. Revich's communication that he does not
wish
> anyone to mistake him for one of the four women or the four lovable
moptops
> in our group. Of course, if we were Beatles Imitators, it would obviously
> leave room for a Yoko Ono Imitator in our midst. This raises a thorny
issue,
> since we do not wish to imitate Fluxus artists. We only wish to perform
> their work.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Secret Fluxus
>
> (The allusion to 'four lovable moptops' is a Silly Week joke. None of us
is
> a moptop. One male has very long hair, the second is normal, our "handsome
> Beatle" is bald - or at least tonsured, and the solicitor looks even more
> normal than the normal one.)



Reply via email to