larry miller, george brecht, etc, etc, etc.
I have never met Picasso, Duchamp, Leonardo or any of the old time cave painters or mayan scribes or rumi except occasionally in a dream now and again but I still know their work and I believe in a trans-temporal, trans-cultural, and trans corporal dialog. I don't believe people need to ever meet each other in person in order to converse with each other and consider each other's work and adopt what one thinks is important from each other. That is why we paint and write things down and keep records and photographs and documents of things. I think while a personal network is important for kicking around ideas for something like the current trajectory of what I will call the fluxnexus - which starts way before fluxus proper and continues far into the future from here moving out of mail networks into internet ones and beyond - we seem to be perfectly happy interacting with each other remotely and I think that is a great thing.
Since this is the case, I have to wonder what we are doing holding together this network of aquantences that we have here on the list if it is not to keep a lot of these ideas from the fluxus vain alive and evolving. If this is the case and we are not willing to call ourselves fluxus artist then I say we should agree among ourselves to reconfigure the whole thing, call it a new name and start having so fun. This would call for throwing out the baby and the bathwater and possible keeping the bath tub itself as some sort of place to put ice and beer.
Now let's conjecture that we do this among ourselves (I say as the fluxnexus) Then we should start to come up with some new rules of engagement that we invent as we go along and otherwise come up with a protocal of how to interact with fluxus works as in having fluxevenings, or reproducing things we like from the old stuff, make new and improved versions of everything under the new name, make it our own (what we want of it) and carry it with us to the future if viable.
I think that id fluxus as an art form is invilved with adopting scientific mehods as a modus operandi then we should go back through and rething everything, conduct experiments and decided what is viable for the future what was just the fashion of the moment. then we will have a start on something new and fun and worth the bother.
I don't think that the people on this list are merely a bunch of would be fluxus collectors who are trying to figure out how to trade old flux junk among ourselves. It seems to me that most people are artists on this list and if that is so, what the hell are we doing if we are not redifining this old shit and making it work for us if we truely feel a strong affinity for it. If that is the case we need to work together and do something more cool that what has been happening so far.
Coming back to your question allan WHAT IS FLUXUS? I think we need to ask what's going to be fluxus (or fluxnexus) and start constructing our network of cooperative work.
Meanwhile I am planning on a big blowout here in cuernavaca during october and november. Everyone is welcome to come down for some bar-b-que and beer (also mexican food, red wine and jack danials).
Cecil Touchon http://fluxnexus.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i read all three bits!
a lull in my ADD or something else?
i learned something
allan = 48
alan = 38
therefore l = 10
tadaaaaa!!!!
perhaps......
anyway, thanks cecil for the full text and allan for your take on it. it's a very interesting area indeed.
however, (oh mercy, here he goes agaian..!),
i still think that it is important that we define fluxus 'now'. i am not a fluxus artist but i learned this the difficult way. i don't wish to be a fluxus artist, but i do wish to be considered as one who works in a way which can be likened to that thing called fluxus. i no longer feel the need to want to be associated with Fluxus, which i once did. i have had the great fortune to hang out with ay-o, emmett, alison, ben etc. i don't KNOW them, they're not my friends - i know i have the respect of at least ay-o and emmett because of time we have spent NOT talking about fluxus (short times!), the times we spent drinking red wine, the times i helped emmett cross roads in new york, the times ay-o went for coffee and always brought me a cookie! those time are so very special to me, and i namedrop blatantly here and proudly for someone who usually cannot tolerate such a thing. but the fact is that because of the time spent in fluxcompany i came to realise that i was not a fluxus artist, my work is not fluxus. it is heavily inspired by and borrows from 'fluxus' pieces, it has been criticised and praised by 'Fluxus' artists. but it is not fluxus.
try to imagine being in a room with ben vautier, emmett williams, ay-o, jean dupuy, philip corner, yoko ono, nam june paik, takako saito, serge III, ken friedman, dick higgins, alison knowles, yoshi wada, geoff hendricks,larry miller, george brecht, etc, etc, etc. work out from there what fluxus is! and then look at your on work - what's the criteria?
i still think we have to work on defining/redefining fluxus, at least to get a Fluxlist definition of Fluxus.
pain i know! but noone ever gets back on this. you can't all be searching to be a bit 'fluxus' for the cool factor. that much is very obvious -
what is fluxus????
Oh Odin's Underpants its a B(owman)LOG http://bowmansramblings.blogspot.com/
