Perhaps you should be aware that your group isn’t the only ‘secret fluxus’ group in operation right now. There is, out here at the edge, <sFt> <sectretFLUXUStrevallyn> that in a way is a kind of <ZENzing> group/chapter/auxiliary as well. In any event <sFt> was inspired by your group albeit that it’s reasons for electing to be ‘secret’ are quite different as there is a <FLUXUStrevallyn> that is open and upfront about what it does/they do, together. I’ve been relaying selected FLUXLIST postings to a group of colleagues/friends/associates for sometime and as a result two informal groups have somewhat spontaneously ‘congealed’ with quite different alliances albeit that all are known to each other – as visual artists, designers, teachers, youth workers, restaurateurs, musicians, academics, bureaucrats et al – It’s more the authorship of their actions that’s secret than the membership.
To cut to the chase <sFt> (btw this is the new ‘tag’ the group has adopted) has opted to operate as a kind of mild cultural gorilla action group producing <FLUXUSlike> ‘works’ at a very local level. It would be true to say that this group/alliance was inspired by the possibilities FLUXUS opened up for them in a very local context. They elected to go with FLUXUS identification in honour of their inspiration but have resolved not to be constrained by it. While I am not directly a part of the group _ <sFt> _ I have facilitated putting some of their stuff out there when asked. While <FLUXUStrevallyn> shared some membership for a while it is transmogrifying into something quite distinct, and local, and in ways that may mean that as a group it may well drop the <FLUXUStag> albeit FLUXUS is ever likely to be an important inspiration – it may even delaminate into simply a network of cooperating individuals. There is a state of FLUX in operation.
I say all this to put this question that has been a subject of discussion in the group(s) for a while into some kind of context. And, if it was answered from Secret Fluxus’s position it would be quite interesting for most in the group.
Has Secret Fluxus ever considered its position as being one related to theology? And here ‘theology’ should be understood in its broadest context.
I expect that you may not find the question relevant to you in any way but that would be as interesting as any position you individually or the group/collective may have adopted.
Ray _4 <sFt> & <Ft> & myself – from way out here on the edge
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/7/04 7:38 AM, "secret fluxus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
>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.
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
