Thank you Owen, I appreciate that you have brought your perspective to this conversation as I know that you generally prefer to listen rather than to speak in this forum.
I agree that the view that you put forward is the most sensible and practical approach to the question. It also seems to correspond closely to views expressed by Dick Higgins and Ken Friedman who have addressed the question in the past. I think that it also corresponds to the views of most of us on the Fluxlist who respect (greatly) the work and ideas of the first Fluxus artists, while continuing to produce new Fluxus and/or Fluxus inspired work. I think that the answers that I seek arise from two questions: 1) How to deal with critics, curators, and historians who insist that Fluxus only existed at a particular time in history, and that it only involved the group of atists who produced work that they called Fluxus within that time frame? I know that one could choose to either ignore or confront them - but what about a "middle way" towards mutual understanding? 2) How to deal with issues within the current community of practitioners who seem divided between those that feel they are producing "new Fluxus work" and those who feel that they are producing new work, of no particular school or movement, but "in the Fluxus tradition"? Maybe these are both questions for which definitive answers can never be found and for which the only solution is ongoing dialogue... By the way, could you or Ann post a link to a site from which issues of Visible Language can be ordered? Allan Revich -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Smith Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Fw: Madame Hulot sez - A Message from Alison Knowles [email protected] on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 9:58 AM -0500 wrote: > >I would be very interested in hearing the thoughts of both Alison and >Hannah about the current status of Fluxus. If they are prepared to >address the "Dead/Alive/Both" question head-on that would be very >interesting, however their thoughts in a more general and less polemic >format would also be welcome. I.E. "What do you think about >contemporary Fluxus practice and where do you see Fluxus going >forward"? Ann K mentioned her article in one of the issues of Visible Language in a prior post - if you are interested in the above you should really read it for the essay covers may important and related issues to the topic of fluxus as an onging concern/approach. It is titled "What has Fluxus Created?" (or did you mention this already Ann?) My own point of view is that there is a historical Fluxus that is what it is (not dead, but more set or determined in a way) but there is also fluxus as a view and practice that is alive an well. This is another way Fluxus is like Zen - both have a history and an ongoing praqctice that are related but not determined one (present, evloving and changing) by the other (past, more set if not fixed) - I had a great conversation with George Brecht a number of years ago about this concept and he agreed that this is a useful way of looking at Fluxus. Owen
