> Now, there's an interesting point about Fluxus ....it'll continue until
> people tire of it.
> I wonder how many of the original fluxus artists are tired of it?
this is a very good question. It's amazing to see how much the original
fluxus bunch came to be tired of Fluxus very soon in the "movement" history.
But they came back to Maciunas later on (pima donnas...) and it wasn't the
same already (I think of the very end of the sixities and the beginning of
the seventies). Then came the great Fluxus shows, who were already some kind
of revivals ( Fluxshoe, Wiesbaden 82 and 92). Were they tired of Fluxus at
that time? Were they exploiting the nostalgia vein? were they truly fluxus
artist, even though their actual practices had changed a lot since 62-64? I
wonder if the sense of the celebration of Fluxus in Wiesbaden is not
something like those festivals of old handcraft trades.
>
> One problem for Fluxus today is that if new people interested in Fluxus
> ideas are not able to make contact with and learn from the Fluxus founders
> there is a danger of breaking the continuum of activity required to
preserve
> the name Fluxus as a useful label for contemporary work.
You're certainly right, but are the Fluxus founders interested in sharing
their fluxknowledge and legitimity? The ridiculous way that Eric Andersen
still say that Ken Friedman came to late to be a truly Fluxus artist, the
long controversy we had last year about new and old Fluxus and the use of
the Fluxus word for contemporary work of young artists, are quite eloquent
in this occurence.
Bertrand
