Here's an interesting essay called "Forty Years of Fluxus" by Ken Friedman:
http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/kfriedman-fourtyyears.html
What I found interesting about it was not so much its history of Fluxus as
its discussion concerning electric and electronic art and what Friedman
finds of value therein and what he doesn't. Mostly why he does or doesn't.
I admire his determination to simplicity. Simplicity not as
over-simplification but as arising from philosophically informed as opposed
to technologically-driven art.
However, I'm not sure how much room a thorough-going pursuit of that erm
aesthetic leaves for, say, software art, in which the application may be
philosophically informed and strongly conceptual but forbiddingly complex
beneath the hood.
Also, I enjoyed his examples of work that failed, and why it failed.
ja
http://vispo.com
a very valuable link to me, thanks. The self-indulgent, tragic biblical
reference at the end is a bit hard to swallow though. Failing to become what
you want to become seems part of the artistic endeavour to me, there's
nothing uniquely fluxus about that. It's how you fail that makes art
interesting…
The broad historical/global view is refreshing, though. It made me think
there's a lot of 'desengano'in contemporary American art, many artistic
motivations resembling the perceptions underlying the Quevedo-Gongora strain
in Spanish Baroque. Or maybe it's just the cold and drizzling winter weather
outside here.
dv
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> Namens Jim Andrews
> Verzonden: maandag 19 december 2005 10:52
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: "Forty Years of Fluxus" by Ken Friedman
>
> Here's an interesting essay called "Forty Years of Fluxus" by
> Ken Friedman:
> http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/kfriedman-fourtyyears.html
>
> What I found interesting about it was not so much its history
> of Fluxus as its discussion concerning electric and
> electronic art and what Friedman finds of value therein and
> what he doesn't. Mostly why he does or doesn't.
>
> I admire his determination to simplicity. Simplicity not as
> over-simplification but as arising from philosophically
> informed as opposed to technologically-driven art.
>
> However, I'm not sure how much room a thorough-going pursuit
> of that erm aesthetic leaves for, say, software art, in which
> the application may be philosophically informed and strongly
> conceptual but forbiddingly complex beneath the hood.
>
> Also, I enjoyed his examples of work that failed, and why it failed.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> the Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>