My Thoughts on Fluxus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYo3wF_g-84
Okay. That’s a little harsh. I can’t say I feel negatively towards Fluxism. But I imagine most people would have the above reaction if you showed them a fluxus artwork with no context.
And I do feel that Fluxus was something of a mistake. But a good one. The kind you are wiser and no worse off for having made. Like having ordered the wrong meal but getting to try a new weird meal. If nothing else you’ve broadened your horizons and now have a better idea of what food is and isn’t good.
I really don’t know what I can say about Fluxus art as most of it seemed to take place “In the moment. I can talk about the theory of it though.
In “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”. Edward Cullen Kylo Ren says to Rey that they should “Let the past die. Kill it if you have to”. He suggests that rather than joining the Jedi/rebellion or Sith/Empire they should form a new faction that isn’t good or evil. He doesn’t seem to have any plan or solid idea of what this third faction would do, how it would gain members, or what it would champion. Just that it would be different from all the stuff that came before it. Much the same I feel can be said for the Fluxists.
In the Fluxus manifestos the fathers name a long list of enemies including traditional 2D art, traditional sculpture, abstract art, minimal art, Classical music, traditionally beautiful art, pop art, representative art, classical poetry and theatre, Cinema and pop music, and Narrative art.
This really does beg the question. When you’ve thrown all of that into the shredder what else is left?
Well the Fluxists do admit very reluctantly to having some forbears. Dick Higgins talks about the connections Fluxus has with Futurism, Dada, Marcel Duchamp, Surrealism, and John Cage, with the same reluctance that a proud ten-year-old might admit that the rest of the team helped him win the football match.
I can understand why. The Futurists and the Dadaists also wanted to burn everything that was old down and throw it all away. Without even comparing their art, this fact makes the Fluxists seem derivative and horribly late to the party. Almost comical.
Fluxus theory has fallen at the first hurdle in that it is trying to be new and original in a very old and unoriginal way. So how does the art stand up?
It’s weird. Maybe not as weird as it would like to be. But even as an experienced fan of fine art I have no idea what I am supposed to get out of, or take away from this. And I imagine to the layman and laywoman it would probably just feel like a mistake.
When I watched the Black & White Fluxus short film ‘The Sun in Your Head’ It just felt like a series of unrelated images only head together by the style in which they were shown. It had no real themes or motifs. And it didn’t make me think about or feel anything. Not even boredom. It did make me reflect on the narratively abstract films of people like Jorden Belson, Jan Svankmajer, and Lawrence Jordan. Lawrence Jordan’s collage films have no story. And are also just images. But He uses certain types of images, music and slow animation to make a mood of sadness, wonder, and nostalgia. ‘The Sun in your Head’ has no style and thus no mood.
I had a similar reaction to ‘In Memoriam to Adriano Olivetti’, The musical act made using things like typewriters and cash registers as instruments. It’s novel to be sure. It totally breaks the rules of how music works and is supposed to be. And it does still sound like music. But once the novelty wears off it’s not that interesting. I doubt anyone has it on their music playlist.
What it did make me think about was how Paul McCartney and John Lennon would break the rules of how pop and rock music were meant to work and sound all the time, and every time they did they not only made their music better, but often helped form new genres and subgenres. They weren’t as rebellious as the Fluxists. But they changed music completely in the ten years they worked together. A much greater feat.
As for the rest of the Fluxus art works I’ve seen? Most of it seems to be live events or “happenings”, which are extremely hard to judge without video footage. But from what I’ve seen they feel more like live Monty Python Sketches played dead straight than real art works.
The made objects like a piano full of nails, or a chair covered in a huge chunk of fat just feel like Dada. But without any of Jean Arp’s strange beauty or Duchamp’s self-mocking humour. It isn’t much weirder than Dada, or notably different. But it doesn’t feel as fun.
Though it does perhaps feel purified.
Dada would sometimes take ideas and techniques from the old art world. Fluxus never does. Dada art can be beautiful. Fluxus art is mostly ugly. It’s quite ridged in that sense. But you do have to admire how dedicated they were in that regard.
In closing. The Fluxists set some very tight limits on what they were aloud to make. The idea that the stuff they were making would replace classical art is absurd. It just doesn’t have the appeal to even compete, let alone replace. But working with limits isn’t always a bad thing. A child playing with sand and a few stones at the beach has very severe limits on what he can make. But that doesn’t stop him from making whole words of adventure and fantasy with his stones and sand.
I get the same feeling from the Fluxus artists. One of playfulness. Doing whatever strange things you can with what little you have. And it’s that same spirit of creativity and experimentation that gave us things like the surrealist paintings of Dali or the music of the Beatles. So maybe you can look at fluxus art is almost a tribute to that spirit of creativity that pushes art forwards. The art might feel like a mistake. But the heart behind it is not. And that is beautiful.