My 2 Cents Worth:
I'm not certain that Madawg completely disagrees with Owen Smith - even though she says she does. He does not put forward a definitive "take it or leave it" view on the matter in either his recent communications or in his book. His book title, Fluxus: The History of an Attitude seems to sum it up quite nicely. Fluxus was an attitude, and as such there was (and is) considerable latitude within that attitude. The history of that attitude is what Fluxus was - and the living continuation of that attitude is what Fluxus is - and is what Fluxus will continue to be. I don't think that there has to be only one accepted definition of Fluxus, nor is it necessary for Fluxus definitions to exist on an "either/or" basis. Even during the Fluxus formative years there were schisms and disagreements over what Fluxus was or wasn't, over what works were Fluxus and what works were not, and over which artists were Fluxus and which artists weren't.
Like Madawg I agree that one does not need to be "anointed or appointed" to be Fluxus, however I also think that one must have a pretty good understanding of what Fluxus was, and of what Fluxus is, before one can call oneself Fluxus with any claim to legitimacy. I.E. People who believe that Fluxus no longer exists would probably not accept anybody working today as a "Fluxus Artist". People who believe that Fluxus art continues to be made today would likely accept anyone creating work with a Fluxus attitude and working in Fluxus media as a"Fluxus Artist". But if somebody who didn't have any understanding of Fluxus at all was to claim that he was a Fluxus Artist, based only on his facility in painting impressionist-style landscapes, I doubt that anybody would seriously consider the claim to be valid.
One part of Fluxus belongs to history, but another part still thrives today. Maybe we can think of Fluxus as being like a monarchy. Monarchs come and go. Kings and Queens are crowned and die. But the monarchy lives on. Fluxus is dead. Long live Fluxus!
Allan Revich
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Madawg Painterofdark
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:55 PM
To:
FLUXLIST@scribble.com
Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: by the way-I disagree with
Owen
--- brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> could this be a part of reason as to why Fluxus
founders/elders might
> consider that Fluxus as an art movement is
dead ?
>
> not to erect a pretense or framing of Fluxus as a group,
but once any
> semblance of structure is razed then Fluxus might as well
be a pot of
> stewed cabbage, or a Name-A-Day thing...now that might be
Fluxus, if
> recognized as such .
>
>
>
brian
> 'Bear of little brain triumphs over
adversity.'
>
>
it sounds like you are saying-as my mother
likes top
say-- fluxus is of the people. Yes -I am here to say
that Fluxus
is main stream - it diminishes it,
how?
yours
Dawg
__________________________________________________
Do
You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around
http://mail.yahoo.com
