Ann, You have succeeded in identify a major source of my uneasiness with Secret Fluxus.
> What I have qualms about is the canonification of fluxus, which, it seems to > me, should continue to be an evolutionary practice, escaping the claims of > its originary makers. (AK) ------- I am not certain if the formality that they express in their communications is "put on", in which case I find it objectionable and perhaps even "anti-fluxus" if there is such a thing. However, it may also be the expression of a cultural difference between British English speakers, and North American English speakers, in which case it may be me who is being culturally insensitive. I must confess that I suspect the former, which would be consistent with what appears to be the tendency of SF to bury fluxus before celebrating it, rather than simply celebrating fluxus as a living and evolving entity. Perhaps SF can elaborate their position a bit more vis a vis what they perceive the state of fluxus to be? Allan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ann Klefstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Dialectic inquiry in Secret Fluxus > Beautifully stated response to issues of nostalgia--I am actually in > sympathy with your project. I curated an exhibition of event scores here in > Duluth, at the university art gallery (the Tweed Museum) to run as a sidebar > to the Dick Higgins retrospective here. I did digital photos of all works in > the show, and some video of student performances of selected scores, and > have been struggling to find time to do even the most rudimentary of > websites so that people can see this work. I also did a series of lectures > and texts for the show to outline historical Fluxus and the theoretical > issues at stake in the idea of the score. > > What I found essential when I organized the show was that all scores, new > and old, were accepted, and that fluxus event scores were presented as an > ongoing practice of invention as well as of performance (of old scores). So > Zoe Marsh, a young woman in England, had a score in the show, as did Ken > Friedman, and people here in Duluth who had never heard of fluxus also > participated and did scores. > > What I have qualms about is the canonification of fluxus, which, it seems to > me, should continue to be an evolutionary practice, escaping the claims of > its originary makers. > > AK > > > On 7/3/04 1:30 PM, "secret fluxus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Ms. Klefstad, > > > > Thank you for your letter yesterday. I passed it on to my colleagues in > > Secret Fluxus. We've been talking about it by telephone and sharing emails > > all day. > > > > We'll continue to reflect on this for a while. I want to share a few > > immediate responses. > > > > As I wrote yesterday, we often consider questions like this. While we have > > never managed to state the problem as clearly as you do, we have given it > > serious thought in different ways. > > > > The difficulty we have in considering this issue is that everything you say > > is right in some sense. At the same time, it does not capture the reality of > > our experience. The dialectic between the clarity of the problem and the > > reality of our experience has been a perpetual challenge to our development. > > > > The beauty of your letter is that it clarifies the issue by using a term we > > have never considered: placeholders. > > > > Are we performing scores that remain lively as original works or are we > > reviving earlier works? If we are reviving earlier works that can only have > > been performed in a past time and a different cultural context, then we > > probably are 'place-holders for an experience that is arising directly out > > of life and the dictates of current culture/history, an experience of > > invention. The placeholder is the revived performance, that does have an air > > of nostalgia about it'. > > > > If we perform the work as music, it has a dimension of freshness and > > invention with each new performance cycle. This is what we feel we are > > doing. > > > > When we experience the reception of these works in public spaces, we don't > > sense that people respond to a revival or nostalgia. In most cases, our > > audience don't know this work and they don't know the artists who created > > it. They experience these works for the first time, and when they do, the > > work is clearly as authentic and immediate for them as the work must have > > once been for other audiences at other times. > > > > The many editions of event scores are probably ephemera - physical pages, > > boxed cards, anthologies and printed collections. The works that the scores > > convey are not ephemera. They are scores, and these scores are performance > > instructions. > > > > Again, we point to the examples of drama and music. An early edition of a > > Shakespeare folio or a theatre program for the first UK performance of > > Eugene O'Neill's Electra is ephemera, as a program of Parsifal signed by > > Wagner would be, or an autograph score by Cage. > > > > The works are not ephemera. They are works, and they come alive when they > > are performed. > > > > If we were concerned with 'the preservation of ephemera,' we WOULD be an > > oddity. We agree that 'truly Fluxus acts are not the revivification of old > > (now culturally out-of-place or anachronistic) performances, but the > > creation of new ones that have authentic immediacy'. We take the position > > that we realize the work in a deep way. For us, this work has a place in > > contemporary culture. It is fresh and immediate for us in our own time. > > > > Your comment on Taoism is addresses this issue in a pointed way. David > > Doris's article on Fluxus and Zen in The Fluxus Reader makes exactly this > > point in relation to koan practice. Most koans are centuries old. Zen > > students even carry little books with the loans and with earlier solutions > > as an aid to their own koan practice. > > > > Despite the history of the koans, the same koans are used again and again, > > and they are used because they become new in the practice of each student, > > leading to 'appropriate immediacy' to 'act as response to context or current > > state of affairs'. > > > > If we were attempting to reproduce the earlier performances, perhaps they > > would be 'preserved, salted-down performances'. > > > > Instead, we work with the scores through close reading and inquiry, debating > > the issues and bringing out from the works what we hope is a new and > > reflective approach to the ideas and possibilities inherent in the work. > > > > We do sometimes worry about whether we are simply engaged in preservation or > > nostalgic recreation. We don't think this is the case, but the dialectic is > > a healthy reminder of what we do not want to be or to become. > > > > Thank you once again for a thoughtful reminder. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Secret Fluxus > > > > > > > > From: Ann Klefstad > > Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Kitsch > > Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:25:40 -0700 > > > > My understanding of the nature of kitsch is that it's the commodified > > sublime. It comes out of an era that sought the sublime in art - something > > that likely is impossible, at least in terms of the Kantian sublime, that > > experience that sort of strips the gears of perception, you know. But > > seemingly representations of landscapes personifying the sublime were > > accepted as sublime artworks (and this was true of poems, paintings, music). > > > > Kitsch appears to be the response to the desire for the sublime. The > > sublime, in an industrial landscape or a commodified life, is a sort of > > negative space, a perpetually deferred longed-for experience that people > > attempt to fill by means of acquisition. Artifacts of wish-fulfillment - > > that is, representations of absent or impossible situations that promise > > sublimity but cannot deliver it - are acquired and quickly "used up," they > > become useless. And so more must be purchased. Kitsch/Sublime becomes a kind > > of engine of consumption, the way a commodified culture paves its road > > toward the desired consummation with the sublime, a road made of discarded > > dreck, more of which is always needed. > > > > In terms of this notion of kitsch, secret fluxus performances are only > > kitsch in that they are place-holders for an experience that is arising > > directly out of life and the dictates of current culture/history, an > > experience of invention. The place-holder is the revived performance, that > > does have a air of nostalgia about it. > > > > I think what's being discussed here is the oddity of the preservation of > > ephemera, and perhaps the point is that truly fluxus acts are not the > > revivification of old (now culturally out-of-place or anachronistic) > > performances, but the creation of new ones that have authentic immediacy. Of > > course this criticism could apply to other performances; it's just much more > > pointed with regard to fluxus because fluxus always had as a subtext that > > sort of taoist regard for appropriate immediacy, act as response to context > > or current state of affairs. > > > > So in some sense, preserved, salted-down performances, as a primary activity > > instead of an occasional apposite homage, could be seen in some sense as > > kitschy, as place-holding entities that are empty and thus that need to be > > endlessly repeated. > > > > AK > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! > > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > > > > > >
