SF, Thank you for responding to my inquiry. I must admit that I disagree with you completely on two of your points. I will outline my reasoning shortly, but before doing so I should confess that I do not believe that I have any elevated right to do so. In my own heart and mind I feel that I am right and that you are not and so I will speak from that position. I am prepared to accept your disagreement, and I accept the fundamental problem of my argument, in that I can claim no universal right to any truth other than my own.
1) RE: > 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. On this point, I feel that the adoption of what you describe as a formal style, is merely pretentiousness. It is possible to be polite without being formal. I am also unaware of any fluxus work, documentation, or discourse, either historical or contemporary in which formality was ever celebrated as anything other than something to be mocked. Thus unless you are adopting anti-fluxus formality as a contemporary fluxus activity in its own right, you are merely being stuffy, snobbish, and pretentious. 2) RE: > 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. On this point I believe there are two weaknesses in your argument. The first is the assumption that the 50% Fluxus work that Maciunas referred to is "historical" fluxus. I see no reason why this percentage can not be totally contemporary fluxus with the other 50% being non-fluxus types of performance. Unfortunately Maciunas is no longer available to answer this question himself, which leads to the second problem. While fluxus began with a core group of artists, writers, performers and other operatives, there was a common ideal among them that the movement/ant-movement was dynamic and evolving all the time. Thus it would be impossible for anybody, including yourselves (and myself) to make any declaration of what is or is not fluxus. The best one could hope for is some sort of broad consensus held by people who are familiar with fluxus. Ken Friedman and George Maciunas elaborated their ideas of what fluxus was and is, but even they were not always consistent, nor does it seem that consistency was even a virtue to them. Neither were they the only arbiters of what fluxus is/is not. In summary then; I respect and admire your dedication to the preservation of historical fluxus, but I believe that the suspicions about your activities that made me uncomfortable are in fact justified. Secret Fluxus is in fact guilty of attempting to kill fluxus, by relegating it to the past as merely an interesting bit of history, rather than celebrating fluxus (as I do) as a living, breathing, and constantly evolving entity. ----- Original Message ----- From: "secret fluxus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 9:40 AM Subject: FLUXLIST: Position on the State of Fluxus > 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 > > >
