Dear Mr. Revich,
Thank you for your reply.
In answering, I am speaking for myself, but I doubt the others would object to what I will say.
Your views are perfectly reasonable and we have occasionally discussed these issues among ourselves. Some of us have taken your position. Because we had to reach some position on these issues, we decided to do as we have done. This doesn�t mean you are wrong, and even those of us who have taken a different position might not disagree with you entirely.
As it happens, I am one who accepts the virtues and limits of formal style. I would not feel comfortable writing to you as �Allan� from a position of anonymity. It seems rude. Perhaps it is not. How would you feel if an anonymous group were to begin addressing you as �Allan�?
While you have the right to your view that we are pretentious, I would like to make clear that we are not celebrating formality. Our decision to correspond in a formal voice is a practical decision.
Without disputing your right to believe that we are pretentious for making this choice, I�d like to point out that many Fluxus works used a formal voice, neither to celebrate nor to mock. The use of a formal stage manner in some Fluxus concerts served as a device to frame the action. In some cases, formal stage dress was used in homage to formal concerts. The meaning of these choices was multifaceted. There were often several elements at work, celebration, play, mockery, all at once. The point was not that the artists celebrated formality, but that they accepted formality as one potential choice among several that they could use to good effect.
I understand your second point, but here I disagree a little more heartily.
We do not see ourselves as a preservation ensemble or a reconstruction ensemble in the way you seem to think we do. We believe that this work is quite able to stand on its own in the present moment, and we are dedicated to the work.
Would you argue that koan practice is the preservation of historical Zen? Would you argue that a performance of Oedipus is the preservation of historical tragedy? Some traditions embody rituals that date back millennia. Do Christians, Jews, and Muslims who celebrate Easter, Passover, or Ramadan merely preserve historical forms or do they engage in a more complex and subtle relationship with traditions?
I feel that our relationship with Fluxus is subtler and more nuanced than you allow.
The issues you raise concerning what it might mean to present a concert that is 50% or more Fluxus does pose interesting questions. For us, the fact that the older Fluxus works have remained in a constant living repertoire for nearly half a century does not make them historical. It makes them repositories of action and engagement. For us, the legacy of continual engagement with these works makes them a good balance to the other work that any concert might include.
I may be wrong on this and some of the others may have different views. I respect your opinion on these issues, and I respectfully disagree.
We do not demand that anyone adopt our position or view on any specific issue. We do feel uncomfortable when people say things like, �Secret Fluxus is in fact guilty of attempting to kill Fluxus, by relegating it to the past as merely an interesting bit of history�. On this point, I know I speak for the others.
Sincerely,
Secret Fluxus
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 13:56:12 -0400 From: �Allan� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Position on the State of Fluxus
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
usthis 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
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.
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
