There really is no special reason that one should "feel that they
need/want/deserve/feel in-titled to the fluxus label on their work or
selves". But there is also no special reason that should prevent one using
the label either. Like all labels, the Fluxus label can potentially supply
information and disinformation simultaneously.
Labels are like avatars or shortcuts. If someone says that they produce
Fluxus work, or Fluxist work, or Fluxus inspired work you have a good
starting point for understanding their work. If a person describes herself
as a Fluxus artist one will (assuming one knows what Fluxus is/was) have a
good idea about the kind of art that person produces - on the other hand the
label in this case might also lead to confusion as the "Fluxus Artist" may
or may not have been associated with Historical Fluxus.
For example, Yoko Ono is a Fluxus artist who no longer (to my knowledge)
creates Fluxus art, whereas Allen Bukoff may also be a Fluxus artist, but he
became associated with Fluxus post-Maciunas. Then there is the large group
of us who create Fluxus-inspired art which can be described as being Fluxus,
Fluxus-like, Fluxus or womething else. I don't think that it is inaccurate
for any of these artists/writers/performers to describe themselves as Fluxus
artists.
I think that the description of Fluxus as "an attitude" remains most useful.
It allows for the historical entity of Fluxus that existed until 1978 -
while also allowing for the living Fluxus being created from the late 1950s
until (and beyond) the present day. Fluxus is (and was) always in flux,
changing and evolving, and like Intermedia, it exists in more than one
dimension simultaneously. There is the historical dimension, the attitudinal
dimension, and a taxonomic (what kind of object) dimension to Fluxus - what
Fluxus "is" depends on the dimension being described.
Allan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:10 PM
To: FLUXLIST@scribble.com
Subject: FLUXLIST: Re: On the disagreement
It baffles me.. why one would feel that they need/want/deserve/feel
in-titled to the fluxus label on their work or selves.
I wouldn't consider the things that I make and do to be Fluxus, rather I
might note that my inspiration and theory is sometimes derived from fluxus
or more accurately parts of fluxus, Just as some folks associated with
Fluxus were inspired by, shared and developed theories that stemmed from
DADA and earlier Avant Gardes or the idea that Cage transformed Duchamp's
ideas of the ready made and distinction into his ideas on music and
composition (4'33")
Why do we need to use Fluxus as a label?
I taught a section on Fluxus in a 3d design/intro to sculpture class a few
years ago. I had my students research Fluxus starting with Dick Higgins 'A
child's history of Fluxus' all the way up to the 'Performance Workbook'.
They were then asked to develop their own Fluxus scores and perform them the
next class. The results were wonderful and I was really amazed at how much
they understood the material and made it their own, though I wouldn't
consider my students to be Fluxus artists. They were inspired by Fluxus and
what they did was create works derivative of the ideas and formats they
found in Fluxus.
Even though we may make works that stem from the ideas in fluxus, We can't
just call ourselves Fluxus artists. So where is the solution?
Are we Fluxus or are we not? Who is Fluxus?
How do we distinguish between the fluxus of today and the fluxus of
yesterday?
Owen has a very nice way of doing this, he describes what he does as not
fluxus but 'fluxist'.
For me Fluxus is an idea that seems to permeate the lives of those who
discover and continue to research it and it continues to spread and mutate
into many forms and ways of doing things.
-David
