“Something About Fluxus” by George Brecht seems to be a very visual explanation of the Fluxus movement. It seems, in the mosts general way, to define the art form as having no boundaries. Performance, music, and art are not confined to the places they would normally be found, such as concert halls or art galleries, but exist at any given moment in our everyday lives. Picking up random objects at one’s feet, or exiting a bus en mass, constitutes a legitimate form of art. Fluxus also has no consistent theme that unites the artists, performers and musicians that compose it’s breadth of work. They simply carry out the Fluxus-esque work as separate entities, unaffiliated with one another aside from the vague label of “Fluxus.” The movement is, in the end, about the message and not the messenger. In “40 Years of Fluxus” by Ken Friedman, the movement is also described as being closely linked to the insurgence of industry and technology, firmly linking art and science as never before. I found the emphasis on simplicity to be very interesting as well. In a time when technology allows for the over-complication of image and sound, the Fluxus interest in simplicity and directness seems a vital part of balancing the potential of art today through technology with an understanding of basic communication and straight-forwardness. Fluxus also concentrates heavily on 12 core issues, which includes globalism, Dick Higgin’s intermedia, playfulness, and chance, to name a few.
Evan Caminiti
February 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Brecht’s “Something about Fluxus” was very entertaining. I was happy to see a link to some works of Takehisa Kosugi, a favorite musician of mine for his work with the Taj Mahal Travellers in the 70’s. Kosugi and the Travellers in my opinion were huge pioneers of drone music decades ahead of their time and their influence on contemporary experimental music is huge! I really like his “Music for a Revolution”. Also, I got a great deal of enjoyment out of Emmett Williams’ “Piece for La Monte Young”, where he would just get up in front of the audience and ask if Young was there and if he wasn’t then that was that. I think its interesting how that work plays off of the idea of status in any kind of scene or movement since Young was seen as a huge originator in many respects. Do ideas really just start with one person, or is it more of a convergence type situation where similar ideas come into fruition at the same time because of what’s going on in the world and all humans being connected to the collective unconscious or non local mind (if you believe in that kind of thing).
Friedman’s “Forty Years of Fluxus” definitely answered some questions I had about Fluxus. His twelve ideas “globalism, unity of art and life, etc…”, make a clear summation of what can be called Fluxus. Friedman states, “Fluxus artists tend to move in a philosophical vein”, which in my opinion is of great importance because the role of artist as philosopher is possibly the most valuable aspect of art as far as making an impact on others by raising important thoughts and questions and causing people to examine their values and culture. It does seem true too often that “too many artists are entranced with the physical qualities of media and unconscious about ideas”. Friedman’s explorations on how historical events and geography have shaped art movements is really interesting additionally. I also found what he had to say about musicality to be thought provoking, “the mind and intention of the creator are key element in the work”. I have often pondered ideas like this in respect to music and art I make, wondering if my intentions and ideas will translate or if people will just perceive things in a different way, based on their biases and past experiences. I was surprised to see Friedman conclude with basically saying the Fluxists failed.
chrisvogel
February 18th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Hmm. I know really enjoy work associated with fluxus. But all in all, I feel that the more I read into it, the more ambiguous fluxus becomes. Considering how all-encompassing fluxus is, I feel it simply gave an identity and place for what a lot of people were already doing. It’s recognized as more of a cognitive awareness than a practice. I guess I get a bit caught up when Friedman goes on to specify what what it actually entails. I can’t agree with one person owning the idea of something so collaborative.
Stephanie Sorth
February 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
When reading about Friedman’s 12 ideas on Fluxus, I found that Fluxus objects and events do tend to possess the physical attributes of humour, simplicity, and intermedia, and they are also created from an attitude towards life and art that encourages globalism, chance, experimentation, temporal factors and the unity of art & life. I found this out when Brecht gives examples of some Fluxus artists and their work. I found myself feeling differently when I read about each of these different artists. Some made me laugh, others were more serious, and some were a complete mystery. For me, I found that much of the Fluxus attitude consists in making the mundane seem magical through the use of simple, playful experiments and exercise that take place where different media intersect.
Jennytam
February 21st, 2008 at 12:08 am
i like what friedman said about the idea of fluxus not being consolidated to a notion of a thing or a movement, but rather a way of life. To me, it kind of echoes what is now being said of “thinking green”; that it is not something that you do because everyone else is doing it, or because it is a new trend, but a way of thinking- a way of life. the concept of “[…] a way of life” seems to encompass more spirit and purpose past the initial object or action; more like the spirit of the idea lives on.
cassandra
February 21st, 2008 at 12:39 am
Cassandra Sechler
art 410
02-21-08
In Brecht’s “Something about Fluxus” he emphasizes that people seem to have misunderstood the fluxus “movement” and states that there is no agreed upon program or methodology for flux art. Therefore, there are no boundaries in the art form. Brecht asks the viewer to open his eyes when viewing art and question the conventions for viewing and interpreting art. What is the natural way to see art? When looking at Alison Knowles “Nivea Cream Piece,” where people involved rubbed cream onto their bodies on front of a microphone and entered/left the room in a certain order, I wondered what the difference is in viewing it in a gallery setting or a park, per se. It is still art. It is a statement without established boundaries, which is a core concept in fluxus art (having no boundaries). In Friedman’s “40 years of fluxus,” he states that fluxus “rejects the idea of fluxus as a specific group of people” and discusses that fluxus identifies with action and is defined by cumulative activity. This idea of fluxus as a way of life and not just a defined moment in history is strong. i think that this view is an interesting and refreshing point that art can exist outside (and inside) an elitist gallery setting and thrive. I enjoyed reading about the fluxus artists being an evolving community that responds creatively to similar broad topics and yet puts no pressure upon themselves or others– they just create. It is a beautiful idea that fluxus art will live as long as there are members of the community to respond to transformative issues, seek new ways to build, and create something to share whether or not it is “good” art or “bad” art., all the while surpassing any notions of a standard.
Murphyck
February 25th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
“Fluxus offers something to everyone who is interested, it demands perseptive and commitment in return, everyone can have it, everyone must want to give it”-Friedman. I really liked how he describes the fluxus ideal. I agree that art can be simple or as complicated as the viewer sees it. I also find interesting how new technologies are making more people creative, yet the old technology is still very useful.
Elyse Mercedes
March 5th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I very much liked the concept that people who have a spirit for art has a place in art. And the fact that we do things no because we see someone else doing it but because it moves you. It make you want to react.
“Something About Fluxus” by George Brecht seems to be a very visual explanation of the Fluxus movement. It seems, in the mosts general way, to define the art form as having no boundaries. Performance, music, and art are not confined to the places they would normally be found, such as concert halls or art galleries, but exist at any given moment in our everyday lives. Picking up random objects at one’s feet, or exiting a bus en mass, constitutes a legitimate form of art. Fluxus also has no consistent theme that unites the artists, performers and musicians that compose it’s breadth of work. They simply carry out the Fluxus-esque work as separate entities, unaffiliated with one another aside from the vague label of “Fluxus.” The movement is, in the end, about the message and not the messenger. In “40 Years of Fluxus” by Ken Friedman, the movement is also described as being closely linked to the insurgence of industry and technology, firmly linking art and science as never before. I found the emphasis on simplicity to be very interesting as well. In a time when technology allows for the over-complication of image and sound, the Fluxus interest in simplicity and directness seems a vital part of balancing the potential of art today through technology with an understanding of basic communication and straight-forwardness. Fluxus also concentrates heavily on 12 core issues, which includes globalism, Dick Higgin’s intermedia, playfulness, and chance, to name a few.
Brecht’s “Something about Fluxus” was very entertaining. I was happy to see a link to some works of Takehisa Kosugi, a favorite musician of mine for his work with the Taj Mahal Travellers in the 70’s. Kosugi and the Travellers in my opinion were huge pioneers of drone music decades ahead of their time and their influence on contemporary experimental music is huge! I really like his “Music for a Revolution”. Also, I got a great deal of enjoyment out of Emmett Williams’ “Piece for La Monte Young”, where he would just get up in front of the audience and ask if Young was there and if he wasn’t then that was that. I think its interesting how that work plays off of the idea of status in any kind of scene or movement since Young was seen as a huge originator in many respects. Do ideas really just start with one person, or is it more of a convergence type situation where similar ideas come into fruition at the same time because of what’s going on in the world and all humans being connected to the collective unconscious or non local mind (if you believe in that kind of thing).
Friedman’s “Forty Years of Fluxus” definitely answered some questions I had about Fluxus. His twelve ideas “globalism, unity of art and life, etc…”, make a clear summation of what can be called Fluxus. Friedman states, “Fluxus artists tend to move in a philosophical vein”, which in my opinion is of great importance because the role of artist as philosopher is possibly the most valuable aspect of art as far as making an impact on others by raising important thoughts and questions and causing people to examine their values and culture. It does seem true too often that “too many artists are entranced with the physical qualities of media and unconscious about ideas”. Friedman’s explorations on how historical events and geography have shaped art movements is really interesting additionally. I also found what he had to say about musicality to be thought provoking, “the mind and intention of the creator are key element in the work”. I have often pondered ideas like this in respect to music and art I make, wondering if my intentions and ideas will translate or if people will just perceive things in a different way, based on their biases and past experiences. I was surprised to see Friedman conclude with basically saying the Fluxists failed.
Hmm. I know really enjoy work associated with fluxus. But all in all, I feel that the more I read into it, the more ambiguous fluxus becomes. Considering how all-encompassing fluxus is, I feel it simply gave an identity and place for what a lot of people were already doing. It’s recognized as more of a cognitive awareness than a practice. I guess I get a bit caught up when Friedman goes on to specify what what it actually entails. I can’t agree with one person owning the idea of something so collaborative.
When reading about Friedman’s 12 ideas on Fluxus, I found that Fluxus objects and events do tend to possess the physical attributes of humour, simplicity, and intermedia, and they are also created from an attitude towards life and art that encourages globalism, chance, experimentation, temporal factors and the unity of art & life. I found this out when Brecht gives examples of some Fluxus artists and their work. I found myself feeling differently when I read about each of these different artists. Some made me laugh, others were more serious, and some were a complete mystery. For me, I found that much of the Fluxus attitude consists in making the mundane seem magical through the use of simple, playful experiments and exercise that take place where different media intersect.
i like what friedman said about the idea of fluxus not being consolidated to a notion of a thing or a movement, but rather a way of life. To me, it kind of echoes what is now being said of “thinking green”; that it is not something that you do because everyone else is doing it, or because it is a new trend, but a way of thinking- a way of life. the concept of “[…] a way of life” seems to encompass more spirit and purpose past the initial object or action; more like the spirit of the idea lives on.
Cassandra Sechler
art 410
02-21-08
In Brecht’s “Something about Fluxus” he emphasizes that people seem to have misunderstood the fluxus “movement” and states that there is no agreed upon program or methodology for flux art. Therefore, there are no boundaries in the art form. Brecht asks the viewer to open his eyes when viewing art and question the conventions for viewing and interpreting art. What is the natural way to see art? When looking at Alison Knowles “Nivea Cream Piece,” where people involved rubbed cream onto their bodies on front of a microphone and entered/left the room in a certain order, I wondered what the difference is in viewing it in a gallery setting or a park, per se. It is still art. It is a statement without established boundaries, which is a core concept in fluxus art (having no boundaries). In Friedman’s “40 years of fluxus,” he states that fluxus “rejects the idea of fluxus as a specific group of people” and discusses that fluxus identifies with action and is defined by cumulative activity. This idea of fluxus as a way of life and not just a defined moment in history is strong. i think that this view is an interesting and refreshing point that art can exist outside (and inside) an elitist gallery setting and thrive. I enjoyed reading about the fluxus artists being an evolving community that responds creatively to similar broad topics and yet puts no pressure upon themselves or others– they just create. It is a beautiful idea that fluxus art will live as long as there are members of the community to respond to transformative issues, seek new ways to build, and create something to share whether or not it is “good” art or “bad” art., all the while surpassing any notions of a standard.
“Fluxus offers something to everyone who is interested, it demands perseptive and commitment in return, everyone can have it, everyone must want to give it”-Friedman. I really liked how he describes the fluxus ideal. I agree that art can be simple or as complicated as the viewer sees it. I also find interesting how new technologies are making more people creative, yet the old technology is still very useful.
I very much liked the concept that people who have a spirit for art has a place in art. And the fact that we do things no because we see someone else doing it but because it moves you. It make you want to react.