Dear Mr. Revich,
We hope that our answer to Ann Klefstad also answered some of your questions.
Please allow us to answer the question you ask on our position on the state of Fluxus.
We have discussed this issue extensively, so I speak for the group in what I write.
We have several individual views on the state of Fluxus today and what Fluxus means today. We also have several somewhat divergent views on the original Fluxus artists.
There are eight of us, and each of us has opinions that differ from the others on some issues. Since few of these issues affect our interaction as a performance ensemble, this does not bother us. We accept our differences as a source of energy. Divergent views bring multiple possibilities forward when we perform.
Our nature as a group may shed light on another matter that bothers you. We are a group, not a person. When we work as a group, we are an ensemble. We are not a band of eight individuals. We are a performance ensemble.
As a performance ensemble resembling a sinfonietta, we work as an institution. The decision to remain anonymous in favour of the composers whose work we perform requires us to maintain an institutional persona. Individuals among us have met and know some of the individuals with whom we correspond. As Secret Fluxus, we do not �know� anyone and no one knows us.
We decided to adopt a formal style. If you knew us and we knew you, perhaps this would be inappropriate. As it is, you know none of us and none of us knows you. This is the case for everyone with whom we correspond. We also maintain a formal style in correspondence with people who may know one of us as an individual without knowing that the individual is a member of our ensemble.
The solicitor made a persuasive case for maintaining a formal style as the simplest and most appropriate approach to anonymous correspondence. A formal style is polite. It allows us to express our views in a reasoned way. We can demonstrate appropriate emotion within appropriate constraints.
Our style is a conscious choice. We made it for specific reasons. Relatively few artists or artist groups on this side of the Atlantic would make the same stylistic choice. In that sense, you are not guilty of cultural insensitivity. Nevertheless, this choice is not �put on�. It is a decision that reflects our history and our needs. The sensitivity we request is that you not do condemn us for an appropriate choice.
Other may prefer a different approach. Everyone is welcome to the style they prefer. This is our style.
Returning to the other question, we have no position on what we �perceive the state of Fluxus to be�.
There are some facts about Fluxus to which we all agree. These are historical facts. These involve such facts as what happened and who did it. We also share a common view on such issues as careful attribution of work and credit to the composers.
There are also aspects of Fluxus on which we disagree. Was Fluxus important? Some of us say �yes�. We believe that Fluxus has given a great deal to contemporary culture and to art. The most sceptical among us says �no�. She loves performing the work, but she thinks of many Fluxus artists as interesting relics whose work is better than they are. (She formed this view by meeting several Fluxus artists over the past fifteen years, starting with the Biennale of Venice. She feels that some Fluxus artists are �legends in their own minds�, while she sees others as serious people who see their own work in sceptical and intelligent terms. In her view, this rescues them from the weight of history, but it leaves them in a problematic position with relation to art and to Fluxus.)
Is it possible to be a Fluxus artist today? We are divided. Our opinions cover several issues and we base them on different lines of reasoning. None of us claims to be a Fluxus artist. One of us feels he might reasonably claim to be a Fluxus artist if he wanted to make the claim. Others have considered the possibility without reaching a conclusion. We agree that the members of Secret Fluxus are NOT Fluxus artists in terms of the group. Secret Fluxus performs work by Fluxus artists.
Is it possible for anyone to be a Fluxus artist who is not among the group of artists defined historically as Fluxus? There is disagreement.
Is it possible for anyone who is not a Fluxus artist to make Fluxus work? We have no position on this.
Is it possible to include new work by new artists in a Fluxconcert? Yes. We share this position with George Maciunas. He established the rule that a Fluxconcert must be called a Fluxconcert if it contains 50% or more Fluxus work. This rule logically means that a Fluxconcert may include new work as long as the new work does not exceed 50% of the programme.
I hope this answers some aspects of your question. We have no common position on many issues. We only feel obliged to take a position on the state of Fluxus when we must for a reason affecting our ensemble or our common work as an ensemble.
Ms. Klefstad�s response states our position with regard to the work. We feel that the work has a life of its own. This fact means that the work can � and should � evolve as �an evolutionary practice, escaping the claims of its originary makers�. We feel free to perform and to interpret the work in new and evolving ways, to add to it, and to build on it. We do not need to claim the position of Fluxus artists to do so.
To answer your question another way, we have a position on the state of Secret Fluxus vis a vis the original Fluxus artists. We believe that we can participate in the Fluxus project without claiming to be Fluxus artists.
I hope these answers offer the information you seek. If not, I�ll be happy to give it another go.
Sincerely,
Secret Fluxus
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 17:48:59 -0400 From: "Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Dialectic inquiry in Secret Fluxus
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
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
