Andreas Broeckmann on Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:40:23 +0100 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Syndicate: The Fluxus Reader is now availabl |
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 14:03:21 +0100 From: Ken Friedman <[email protected]> The Fluxus Reader is now available (Please forgive cross-posting /KH4/) SYNOPSIS Fluxus began in the 1950s as a loose, international community of artists, architects, composers, and designers. By the 1960s, Fluxus had become a laboratory of ideas and an arena for artistic experimentation in Europe, Asia, and the United States. Described as "the most radical and experimental art movement of the 1960s," Fluxus challenged conventional thinking on art and culture for over four decades. It had a central role in the birth of such key contemporary forms as concept art, installation, performance art, intermedia, and video. Despite this influence, the scope and scale of this unique phenomenon have made it difficult to explain Fluxus in normative historical and critical terms. The Fluxus Reader offers the first comprehensive overview on the challenging and controversial group. Written by leading scholars and experts from Europe and the United States and edited by Ken Friedman, The Fluxus Reader runs 320 pages, including front matter and an extensive index. The book is available in bookstores It is also available online with good discounts at Barnes and Noble in the US and at Amazon in the UK. (Amazon US has the title, but there is no discount at this time.) www.metashopper.com/mps/books/barnesandnoble www.amazon.co.uk www.amazon.com Here are the the table of contents, and the introduction. THE FLUXUS READER Edited by Ken Friedman London. Academy Editions. 1998. ISBN 0471978582 CONTENTS Contents Acknowledgements Ken Friedman: "Fluxus: A Transformative Vision." Part I: THREE HISTORIES Owen Smith: "Developing a Fluxable Forum: Early Performance and Publishing." Simon Anderson: "Fluxus, Fluxshoe, Fluxion: Fluxus in the 1970s." Hannah Higgins: "Fluxus Fortuna." Part II: THEORIES OF FLUXUS Ina Blom: "Boredom and Oblivion." David Doris: "Zen Vaudeville: A Medi(t)ation in the Margins of Fluxus." Craig Saper: "Fluxus as a Laboratory." Part III: CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Estera Milman: "Fluxus, History and Trans-History." Stephen C. Foster: "Historical Design and Social Purpose." Nicholas Zurbrugg: "A Spirit of Large Goals." Part IV: THREE FLUXUS VOICES Larry Miller: "Transcript of the Videotaped Interview with George Maciunas." Susan Jarosi: "Selections from an Interview with Billie Maciunas." Larry Miller: "Maybe Fluxus." Part V: TWO FLUXUS THEORIES Dick Higgins: "Fluxus: Theory + Reception." Ken Friedman: "Fluxus & Co." Part VI: DOCUMENTS OF FLUXUS Fluxus Chronology: Key Moments and Events A List of Selected Fluxus Art Works and Related Primary Source Materials A List of Selected Fluxus Sources and Related Secondary Sources Index INTRODUCTION A Transformative Vision of Fluxus A little more than thirty years ago, George Maciunas asked me to write the history of Fluxus. It was the autumn of 1966. I was sixteen then, living in New York after dropping out of college for a term. George enrolled me in Fluxus that August. Perhaps he asked me to write the history because saw me as a scholar, perhaps simply someone with enough energy to undertake and complete such a project. Not long after, I grew tired of New York. I moved back to California. That was when George appointed me director of Fluxus West. Originally intended to represent Fluxus activities in the western United States, Fluxus West became many things. It became a center for spreading Fluxus ideas, a forum for Fluxus projects across North America outside New York -- as well as parts of Europe and the Pacific, a traveling exhibition center, a studio in a Volkswagen bus, a publishing house and a research program. These last two aspects of our work led George to ask me once again to take on a comprehensive, official history of Fluxus. I agreed to do it. I didn't know what I was getting into. The history project was never completed. I found that the ideas in Fluxus interested me more than the specific deeds of a specific group of artists. Perhaps that's fair. While I live a scholar's life in addition to my life as an artist, my focus on Fluxus doesn't involve documentation or archival work. The documents and works I collected didn't go to waste. They found homes in museums, universities and archives where they are available to scholars who do want to write the history of Fluxus. They are also available to scholars, critics, curators and artists who want to examine Fluxus from other perspectives. The history that I never finished gave rise to several projects and publications that shed light on Fluxus in many ways. This is one of them. The key issue here is explaining a how and why of Fluxus. Emmett Williams once wrote a short poem on that how and why. He wrote, "Fluxus is what Fluxus does -- but no one knows whodunit." What is it that Fluxus does? Dick Higgins offered one answer when he wrote "Fluxus is not a moment in history, or an art movement. Fluxus is a way of doing things, a tradition, and a way of life and death." For Dick, as for George, Fluxus is more important as an idea and a potential for social change than as a specific group of people or a collection of objects. As I see it, Fluxus has been a laboratory. It is a grand project characterized by George Maciunas's notion of the "learning machine." The Fluxus research program has been characterized by twelve ideas: globalism, the unity of art and life, intermedia, experimentalism, chance, playfulness, simplicity, implicativeness, exemplativism, specificity, presence in time and musicality. (These twelve ideas are elaborated in the chapter titled "Fluxus and Company.") These ideas are not a prescription for how to be a Fluxus artist. Rather, they describe the qualities and issues that characterize the work of Fluxus. Each describes a "way of doing things." Together, these twelve ideas form a picture of what Fluxus is and does. The implications of these ideas have been more interesting and occasionally more startling than they may have first seemed. Fluxus has been a complex system of practices and relationships. The fact that the art world can sometimes be a forum for philosophical practice made it possible for Fluxus to develop and demonstrate ideas that would later be seen in such frameworks as multimedia, telecommunications, hypertext, industrial design, urban planning, architecture, publishing, philosophy, even management theory. A fluid, transdisciplinary, intermedia nature makes Fluxus lively, engaging -- and difficult to describe. We can view Fluxus through several disciplines. One discipline is history, and there is a history of Fluxus to be told. While the core issues in Fluxus are ideas. Fluxus ideas were first summarized and exemplified in the work of a specific group of people. This group pioneered these ideas at a time when their thoughts and practices were distinct and different from most thought and practice in the world around them, distinct from the art world and different than the world of other disciplines in which Fluxus would come to play a role. To understand the how and why of Fluxus, what it is and does, it is important to understand "whodunit," to know what Fluxus was and did. History offers a useful perspective. Fluxus, however, is more than a matter of art history. Literature, music, dance, typography, social sculpture, architecture, mathematics, politics ... they all play a role. Fluxus is the name of a way of doing things. It is an active philosophy of experience that only sometimes takes the form of art. It stretches across the arts and even across the areas between them. Fluxus is a way of viewing society and life, a way of creating social action and life activity. In this book, historians and critics offer critical and historical perspectives. Other writers frame the central issues in other ways. The ideal book would be three times as long as this one is, and impossible to publish. I chose to focus on issues that open a dialogue with the Fluxus idea. Rather than giving the reader everything there is to know about Fluxus, this book lays out a map, a cognitive structure filled with tools, markers and links to ideas and history both. Fluxus has become a symbol for much more than itself. Companies in the knowledge industry and creative enterprises use the name Fluxus. Advertising agencies, record stores, performance groups, publishers and even young artists now apply the word Fluxus to what they do. This suggests that something is happening in terms of real influence and in terms of fame, the erstwhile shadow of influence. It's difficult to know whether we should be pleased, annoyed, or merely puzzled. Tim Porges once wrote that the value of writing and publishing on Fluxus rests not on what Fluxus has been but on what it may still do. If one thread binds the chapters in this book, it is the idea of a transformative description that opens a new discourse. A new and appropriate understanding of Fluxus leaves open the question of what it may still do. That's good enough for me. Owen Smith and I were discussing this book one afternoon. We reached the conclusion that it's as much a beginning as a summation. Back in the 1980s, George Brecht wrote that "Fluxus has Fluxed." A few years later, Emmett said that "Fluxus has not yet begun." Perhaps they are both right. An on-line discussion group called Fluxlist often explores the question of what lies between those two points. One of the interesting aspects of the conversation has been the philosophical subtlety underlying the several positions. Those who believe there is a Fluxus of ideas and attitudes more than of objects feel that there is a future Fluxus that intersects with and moves beyond the Fluxus of artifacts and objects. This vision of Fluxus distinguishes between a Fluxus of specific artists acting in time and space and what René Block termed Fluxism, an idea exemplified in the work and action of the historic Fluxus artists. This book offers a broad view of Fluxus. It is a corrective to the hard-edged and ill-informed debates on Fluxus that diminish what we set out to do by locating us in a mythic moment of time that never existed. Fluxus was created to escape the boundaries of the art world, to shape a discourse of our own. A debate that ends Fluxus with the death of George Maciunas is a debate that diminishes George's idea of Fluxus as an ongoing social practice. It also diminishes the rest of us, leaving the original Fluxus artists disenfranchised and alienated from the body of work to which they gave birth. In the moments that people attempt to victimize us with false boundaries, I am drawn to two moments in history. A key moment in 6th century China mirrors the debates around Fluxus in a suitable way. It involved the split between Northern and Southern schools of Zen. The split seems not to have involved the two masters who succeeded the Sixth Patriarch, Shen-hsiu and Hui-neng. The schism seems to have been the creation of Hui-neng's disciple, Shen-hui, and those who followed him. The main protagonists respected and admired each other to the point that the supposedly jealous patriarch Shen-hsiu in fact recommended Hui-neng to the imperial court where he was already held in high renown. This is like much of the argumentation around Fluxus. Protagonists of one view or another, adherents of one kind of work or another, those who need to establish a monetary value for one body of objects or another seem to feel the need to discount, discredit or disenfranchise the rest. That makes no sense in a laboratory, let alone a laboratory of ideas and social practice. The other moment took place when Marcel Duchamp declared that the true artist of the future would go underground. To the degree that Fluxus is a body of ideas and practices, we are visible and we remain so. To the degree that Fluxus is or may be an art form, it may have gone underground already. If this is so, who can say that Fluxus is or isn't dead? What survives and what remains interesting is the body of knowledge, the ideas and practices that flourish in the laboratory named Fluxus. Ken Friedman 1998 January 19