JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  February 2013

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING February 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fluxus,gender,democratisation

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:49:40 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

Dear Clive,

Yikes! I seem already to have entered the conversation and I haven’t yet managed to post my own intro. So be it.

Your points are well taken. Some nuance is required.

You write, “More needs to be written about Fluxus and gender, or what has been written should now interrupt the repetitive male histories. Ken does note this in “Freedom? Nothingness? Time? Fluxus and the Laboratory of Ideas” but then ‘reverts’ or takes up the rest of the space with what male philosophers or artists have to say about this or that.”

This is correct, yet misleading.

Fluxus took place in a specific time, and that time partly shaped what was possible. Fluxus had a greater variety of artists of different kinds than any similar community at the time – the early 1960s. At that time, the Fluxus community included far more women than any other community of artists – greater numbers in both absolute terms and percentages.

It’s odd to speak about “reverting.” When you write about ideas, you use the sources. This article was a look back over a half century. Men wrote many of the source documents. Many writers on hermeneutics are men – hermeneutics grew from theology, a discipline that was almost male by definition until the 1980s, and still heavily male. While your critique is in one way correct, Riceour, Gadamer, Thistelton, Klemm, and Vanhoozer are worth reading, male or not.

Even though I agree with your criticism, any discussion of history reflects the time under review. The sources are also located in time. If you look at your own note, you tip your hat to Kristine Stiles and Carolee Schneemann before praising an group exclusively comprised of men. I could write about your note what you wrote about my article: “Clive raises the issue of gender and women, before he ‘reverts’ to a male philosopher (Fourier), an exclusively male list of artists (Filliou, Groh, Tilson) and a suite of male-managed projects (File, Catalyst, International Artist Cooperation).”

What you’ve written about George Maciunas troubles me. It is not entirely fair to write, “Worth remembering that Mr. Let’s-keep-the-club-membership-under-control Maciunas was not so open-network friendly?”

George was different in the early years of Fluxus than he was later. In the early days, he attempted to control people and took a collectivist attitude rather than a networking attitude. He was quite different by the time I met him.

Two things deserve saying.

First, George never controlled Fluxus. He may have wanted to do so at the start, but the fact remains that a larger group of people formed a community. They pursued their own goals. No one obeyed George. What kind of control could he exert?

I discuss this in a catalogue essay (Friedman 2011) that I’ve posted on Academia.edu, “Fluxus: A Laboratory of Ideas.” It covers some issues that I don’t discuss in the article, including questions of the collective and control.

http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Second, George was as responsible as anyone for the network quality of Fluxus – for the great number of female participants. Many of the women active in Fluxus joined the community on George’s invitation.

Like all of us, George was an imperfect human being who tried to achieve more than he managed to do. George was one of those serious, inspiring characters who did not give up when things did not work – he tried many ways of doing things, growing and shifting his perspectives with each effort.

You and your Canadian colleagues had the good fortune of living in Canada at a time of generous government support for artist networks. As you noted in your intro, these were not always what they seemed to be. Canada’s artist network efforts, artist  centers, and artist magazines did not always turn out as people hoped they might, but there was serious and significant support. Moreover, other forms of support were accessible to Canadian artists before the government allocated specific support to artist networks, centers, organizations, and publications.

Imagine the problems Canadian artists would have faced in establishing networks completely on their own with no support whatsoever. Then imagine working eight hours a day in an ordinary job to earn the money to do that. Ordinary jobs don’t involve universities, art schools, or museums. Ordinary jobs are eight-to-five jobs in such fields as design, production graphics, typography, or architectural drafting. Those are the kinds of job that George Maciunas took – both eight-to-five and freelance – to earn the money that he spent supporting and developing the Fluxus network.

It seems to me ungracious to label George with the pejorative epithet, “Mr. Let’s-keep-the-club-membership-under-control.”

Robert Filliou and George Brecht were cordial and generous in conceiving the model of the Eternal Network. They functioned as pure artists, floating around the world to develop and enjoy their own projects. They did not build or maintain networks for anyone else, and they did not keep networks functioning. At a certain point, each of them retired from the world, abandoning any connection they had once had to the networks in which they took part.

In contrast, such Fluxus people as George Maciunas, Dick Higgins, Nam June Paik, or myself built and maintained active projects, networks, and nodes on the network. What differs with these networks to single-purpose art projects using network models is that people other than ourselves made use of these networks for their own projects, much as people use the phone system or a canal or the Internet for their own projects rather than only for something that the network owner wishes them to do. People also adapted the networks and models we built to purposes of their own without involving us at all.

While I agree in great part with what you’ve said, it made me uncomfortable to see the suggestion that Robert was congenial in his development, management, and use of networks while George was a controlling figure in the mode of an Andre Breton. Robert was congenial – but he did not develop or manage networks: he thought about them and shared his ideas. That’s rather like a political scientist discussing what government ought ideally to be, as contrasted with people who enter the arena of politics to deal with the messy business of governing.

This difference becomes clear to anyone that studies political and economic history rather than art history. It’s visible in the difference between the abstract, clear, and distant analysis that a superb historian such as Sir John Keegan (2003) shows in his short biography of Winston Churchill or Gordon Wood (2006) shows in hisgroup biography of the American revolutionary leaders. Compare this with the real lives of the people these historians analyze. They make decisions in the heat of a moment, good and bad, knowing they must act.

I’ve occasionally had jobs that require me to take responsibility for massive budgets and many people. One thing I often found is that the decisions I made were often choices that required me to decide not between good and bad, but between two significantly good opportunities, each lodged in a larger context that guided my choice. What this meant was that deciding to take one good opportunity required me to choose against another good opportunity. No matter how good the choice I made, I was forced to choose against something else that I also valued.

George was sometimes wrong in his choices and behavior. He grew as a human being, and he did things in different ways at different times. He earned the money he spent on Fluxus, and he paid for every choice he made. Artists whose networks were funded by supportive governments were paid for their work. George paid to work. As much as I valued Robert and his ideas, he did not invest the time and effort in networks that George did.


In a famous speech delivered to the Commons – a speech in which he honored the memory of one of his great political opponents – Winston Churchill stated that we don’t have the privilege of knowing the final results of our actions in advance. We cannot determine our historical legacy. Actions that seem grand when we undertake them soon appear foolish. Historians continually change their views in the light of mounting evidence. What seems to have been a blunder may later prove to be a valuable contribution, while essential actions may prove to be minor deeds.



Churchill’s conclusion was that we must live as well as we can, doing as much as we canwith what we have. That’s the measure of a human being. George attained this admirable standard, demanding of himself as much as he asked of others. In the end, that is the measure of a human being.

This leads me to a suggestion based on your comments to my article. You write, “More needs to be written about Fluxus and gender, or what has been written should now interrupt the repetitive male histories.”

You are yourself an art historian. Why not write some of this yourself?

Before I close, I should note that the free copy of my article (Friedman 2012) in Theory, Culture, and Society vanished with the new issue. I’ve placed a copy on my Academia Edu page, along with other Fluxus materials. Scroll past the design entries to find them:

http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design>

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China

--

References

Friedman, Ken. 2011. “Fluxus: A Laboratory of Ideas.” Fluxus and the Essential Qualities of Life. Jacquelynne Baas, editor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.35-44. Available at URL:

http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Friedman, Ken. 2012. “Freedom? Nothingness? Time? Fluxus and the Laboratory of Ideas.” Theory, Culture, and Society. Vol. 29, No. 7/8, December, pp. 372–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276412465440

Also available at URL:

http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Keegan, John. 2003. Churchill. London: Phoenix.

Wood, Gordon. S. 2007. Revolutionary Characters. What Made the Founders Different. London: Penguin Books.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager