Ray _from way out on the edge
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (when the server’s up)
On 4/7/04 11:40 PM, "secret fluxus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
