I myself would hope that the notion of "progress" in art, an imagining of arthistory
to parallel, say, the development of material technologies, could be discarded. Thus
the notion of the avantgarde--that is, those out in front, those "most
progressive"--could also be discarded. I don't think that an "avantgarde" today is
anything but a competitive positivist impulse that unconsciously models itself on
technological development, you know, "The Rise of Man" kind of thing.
The thing I always liked about Fluxus was its refusal of narratives of prowess, its
ability to mock such narratives (say, the "Twelve Big Names" thing) and its choice of,
instead of the slogan "forward!", the slogan "sideways!" Many Fluxus practitioners
used the "stupid" relation of the body as animal body to the physical world, and their
work (such as Ken's salt projects) used the elemental physical attributes of things.
This does not make for forward motion, it makes
instead for a recursion to simple perception, an invoking of thoughtfulness about what
conditions the perception, an invoking of memory--in other words, movement back,
sideways, in circles, not the forward rush of the avantgarde and its oppositional
tactics. Fluxus didn't so much oppose, beat back, fight, as, say, unravel, comb out,
or knit up.
Can we speak in terms of what things do rather than what they oppose?
AK
Josh Ronsen wrote:
> Heiko Recktenwald writes:
>
> >When fluxus began in the Cage class, they were some of the
> >most avantgarde people of its time. Those who call themself
> >"fluxus" today are not.
>
> What does avantgarde mean, today? Who is avantgarde today? These are interesting
>questions and I do not know how to approach them.
>
> Don't hate me, but I have been reading an article about Online (Internet) Education
>in a recent issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine. There is quote from a
>professor (my copy is at home) who is trying to get "top-notch" universities to let
>their faculty lecture for his online ed company: to paraphrase-- the avant-garde (in
>art) and capitalism as similar because they are both concerned with the "new."
>
> I disagree with this statement, or at least with the superficial aspects of it. My
>conception of the avant-garde is one of overturning established orders and
>ideologies, which I guess could be considered "new," but it is a new mentality.
>Capitalism is ALWAYS concerned with producing goods or services at a profit, and
>hasn't changed at all. There is a drive for new goods and markets and a silly
>marketing spin on Internet Business as "the New Economy" (tm), but it isn't.
>
> Now the relation between art and capitalism can be scary: is the avant-garde in art
>just the capitalist quest for new markets? Ack! I hope not. Maybe it has become that.
>
> For me, if the avant-garde is "overturning established orders and ideologies," the
>one it should be directed against is capitalism.
>
> I'd be interested in thoughts/reactions on this topic.
>
> -Josh Ronsen
> http://www.nd.org/jronsen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> Before you buy.
