In a message dated 5/12/05 7:54:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I would like to start a discussion on how to identify a visual art work > as a specificly fluxus art work o > i missed this one somehow, what was the full post? it's a good question, and i have no idea how to answer! you could get allan revich to make a sticker to stick on it perhaps? before we can get around to labelling works fluxus (and i use the small f deliberately) we have to define just what fluxus is. and here it begins again. if we were to ask the remaining 1962 group i am sure we would get a couple of interseting anwers about defining fluxus, but mainly about why on earth we would want to. jon hendricks might say he it's because he says so and it's in the Fluxus codex. eric andersen may have a wonderful grammatically incorrect diatribe for us. (such a discussion should never be had with eric via email, but over dinner where you get to fill his glass twice as many times as your own,that way you have a chance of winning) emmett is the only one i know to blatantly still use the word fluxus endearingly in his current work, so i guess his visual work can still be called 'fluxus'. i ramble how does one classify a work as fluxus in the first place? 40 years after the first fluxus ventures the word has come to signify much more than it ever did and the world has come to expect more from fluxus than there ever was. if we talk about the capital f version that is. fluxus has been hijacked, adopted, assimilated, morphed, borrowed, plagiarised, reworked, overworked and overblown and we've made something else out of it (much as the new punks have done with the music ) perhaps its time for a new fluxus manifesto. the old fluxers on the whole disown the term 'fluxus' as any great deal. however there is no denying the fact that because of them and their continuing 'fluxus' events, festivals and retrospectives they are keeping it going in some sort of 'limbo' state. maintaining 'ownership' but denying that it exists. art historians and scholars have helped turn it into into smething it never was. now it "is" allen bukoff tried to take it on, i really like allen's stuff - the fluxus humour is there by the shedfull, perhaps he stuck too close to the accepted fluxus template, which no one is really allowed to stick to as it's not ours to use. perhaps he should have taken the f word and made it his own instead of trying to insert himself into a group were he wasn't wanted, perhaps for fear of the limelight steal. wow look at that! i wrote all that and still got no closer to answer the question. perhaps a career in politics calls the bowman lad... Oh Odin's Underpants its a B(owman)LOG http://bowmansramblings.blogspot.com/
